, ^^^/^ 




■'% 



5 ^^ 






'/- 



A' v^' 



^0 £2 : « 



■^^ n^' 



>y^^^ 



.^^ 






-.# ""^ 




'% %^ 









^^ v^^ 



^°^. 












xP *V 



:#:"%. 






'^c 



'. "-^c. 









^^ 






-m"^.^^ 






.0' 



A-i^' 



.sX>' <^, 



•p^ 



.0 o^ 






^^.S^c^' 






^" .^5^^.^ 



0^ 



:^^^<k^^^ ."> 



-^ 












y.<9 



^ ^^ - 






fh^o 






"^ 



,^^ -7% 



^ ff . ^ * ^^^ 



.^^ 



<^ * .0 N 



A" 



-^' 



ANASTASIS: 



THE DOCTEINE 



EESURKECTION OP THE BODY, 



RAnONALLY AND SCRIPTURAILY CONSDEEED. 



"EffTi amfia }irEV[iartx6r. 

Paul. 



BY GEORGE BUSH: 

TKoriuoR or hcbbxw, new-toux citt critshbitt. 



SECOND EDITION. 



NEW-YORK & LONDON : 

WILEY AND PUTNAM. 

1845. 



/-•-- 1 



^o9} 



i^ 



■f^ 



EkterhDj according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 

GEORGE BUSH, 

jn the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. 



The Library 

OF Cov^VKiS 



WASHINGTON 



J. F. TROW & CO., PRINTSRS, 

33 Ann-street, New-York. 






PREFACE. 



It is, I am persuaded, but seldom that a work is presented to 
the public under a more oppressive load of conscious solemn re- 
sponsibility than that which presses upon my own spirit in deliver- 
ing over to the verdict of the Christian community the present 
volume. By no possibility can I disguise from myself the fact, that 
the results which it announces are of very momentous import to 
the interests of revealed truth. From the inevitable relations 
*the doctrine of the Resurrection to the cognate announcements 
oi the great scheme of Scriptural Eschatology, or the doctrine of 
the last ihi7igSy a course of reasoning, or a theory of interpreta- 
tion, which goes essentially to change the estabhshed view of 
that tenet, must necessarily work a correspondent change in our 
estimate of a whole class of subjects bearing upon the theme of 
human destiny in another life. Now it is certain that the con- 
clusions to which I have arrived, and which will be found em- 
bodied in the ensuing pages, must, if built upon sound premises, 
present the grand future under an entirely new aspect. The ^ 
resurrection of the body, if my reasonings and expositions are 
well-founded, is not a doctrine of revelation. 

I cannot be unaware of the shock which such a declaration is 
calculated to give to the settled preconceptions of a great portion 
of Christendom. Nor can I be insensible to the imputation, 
which it can scarcely fail to draw after it, of an uncommon 
degree of temerity in thus virtually assuming to arraign and 
to convict of error the currrent creed of the Church for the space 
of eighteen centuries. The severity of judgment reasonably to 
be expected on this score I know can be propitiated only by an 
overwhelming cogencyof proof of the truth of the main position. 
This it would be doubtless rash to promise ; but it may go some- 



IV PREFACE. 

what, perhaps, in arrest of a condemning verdict to assure the 
reader, that 1 have profoundly weighed all the considerations 
which naturally urge themselves upon one who ventures to such 
a length of rational and exegetical hardihood as he will probably 
think evinced in the work before him. I beg him also to believe, 
that nothing short of the most intense conviction of the truth of 
the principles on which my conclusions rest, could have prevailed 
upon me to stand forth so much in the attitude of an impugner of 
the fixed belief of good and great men both of the past and the 
present. For to say nothing of the rashness of hazarding a du- 
bious theory upon a cardinal doctrine, I have, in a worldly point 
of view, every thing at stake : as no former services in the cause 
of biblical truth can be expected to redeem any man from the 
consequences of a subsequent radical error. It is doubtless 
reasonable that this avowal should carry with it some weight 
in evidence of the strength of myown convictions of the truth of 
the positions I have assumed to maintain, although I am well 
aware that this is not the kind of evidence necessary to secure 
the convictions of the reader. 

If any thing can be cited in the way of apology for thus going 
against the prevalent views of the Christian world on an impor- 
tant point of doctrine, it is the estabhshment of the principle 
maintained in my Introduction, of the progressive development 
of Scriptural truth. This principle I believe to be a sound one, 
and under its tutelage my conclusions must take shelter. 
^ On a candid review of the whole subject, I cannot divest my- 
self of the impression that both my premises and my conclusions 
are sound. If so, let it not be thought strange that my sohcitude 
for the result embraces my readers as well as myself. Truth 
has the same claims upon them that it has upon me. As it must 
necessarily be a matter of serious moment with me to propagate 
that which is false, so it cannot be a thing of light import witli 
them to reject that which is true. It is at any rate certain, that 
no one can justly feel himself at liberty, in the forum of his own 
conscience, to repudiate or decry the positions assumed in this 
book without a thorough examination of the grounds on which 
they rest, and a competent exegetical expose of the fallacy of my 
reasonings. I feel, with great force, the justice of my demand, 
that the argument shall be fairly met, and this it cannot be but 
by a process of investigation similar to that which I have myself 



PREFACE. V 

instituted in the ensuing pages. No candid mindj therefore, can 
fail to appreciate the earnestness with which I enter my protest 
against the hasty verdict of mere prejudice and preconception* 
Putting, as I do, every thing at stake on the score of reputation^ 
influence, usefulness, and temporal well-being, I feel that I have 
a right to be heard in defence of conclusions so fraught with 
weal or woe to to their author. When such a hearing can be 
secured on the part of enlightened minds, I cannot say that I 
cherish much concern as to the issue. I have the utmost confi- 
dance that the evidence, when fairly presented, will strike them 
as it does me. Yet but a slight acquaintance with the history 
of opinion, and particularly of religious opinion, is requisite to 
beget the anticipation, that the work will be condemned, if at 
all, by those who will be so much offended at the conclusion, 
that they will not deign to 'put themselves in possession of vthe 
premises. It is, however, a consolation to which I should blush 
to be insensible, that Truth has Omnipotence for its Patron, 
and that, like Wisdom, it will eventually be "justified of its chil- 
dren." 

After all, I know not that a mainly deprecatory tone is that 
which the true ^character of my work most properly warrants. 
If I could deem myself to have come forth as an opponent 
to the great truth involved |in the doctrine of the Resurrec- 
tion — if I had invaded in a ruthless way the faith of a future life, 
of immortality, of retribution — I might have stronger motives for 
seeking to soften the sentence which I could not hope to avoid. 
But it is not in this character that I claim to appear before the 
tribunal of the Christian public. There is nothing destructive 
in the bearings of the theory here presented. I have advanced 
nothing that is intrinsically calculated to weaken the force of 
the great moral sanctions of the Gospel. I leave the sublime 
announcements of the Resurrection — the Judgment — Heaven — 
Hell — clothed with all their essential practical potency, as doc- 
trines of revelation, though placed, as I trust,, upon their true 
foundation, and eliminated from the mixtures of long adhering 
error. I may venture, then, to say, that whatever sentiments of 
repugnance the views here broached may encounter in limine, 
they will arise rather from the hearsay results which I have an- 
nounced, than from a calm and candid scanning of the entire ar- 
gument. The issue of this I am confident will be a far more 



VI PREFACE. 

elevated and satisfying view of man's ulterior destiny, than that 
which is afforded by the common construction of the subjects I 
have treated. The theory here announced of the Resurrection, 
while it perfectly obviates the objections from Reason, clothes 
the Scripture statements with a new interest, from the bare fact 
that they are seen to be capable of uttering their oracles in har- 
mony with the dicta of science and philosophy. Every exhibi- 
tion of Scriptural truth which goes to wrest its weapons from the ^ 
hands of a cavilling skepticism, in fact achieves for it a new tri- 
umph ; and the more perfectly it can be shown to echo the voicjEi 
of Nature and of Law, the more complete must be its authority 
over the human mind. 

It is far from improbable that some lapses of statement — 
some errors in reasoning— some faults of exposition — may be 
detected in the minor details of the discussion. For the exposure 
of such blemishes I shall be truly grateful, while at the same 
time the candid critic will feel that the argument claims to be met 
at its strong J as well as at its weak points. Especially would I 
express the hope that the avowed substantial identity of the theory 
with that of Swedenborg may not operate to the undue dispar- 
agement of the whole work. That I have been here and there 
indebted to Mr. Noble's able and interesting " Appeal in Behalf 
of the Views of the Eternal World and State held by the New 
Jerusalem Church," will be seen from the several quotations I 
have made from it ; but I here repeat that my main results have 
been arrived at by a purely independent process. But the course 
of argument pursued by that writer I regard as sound and suc- 
cessful; and neither my convictions nor my habits allow me to 
consider the force of truth as neutralized, by being found in con- 
nexion with incidental error. As to the claim of Swedenborg 
to have received his doctrine on this or other points by a su- 
pernatural illumination, I have nothing to say. The acquaint- 
ance I have been led to form with his character and writings 
have inspired me, on the whole, with sentiments of respect for 
the man, while at the same time the very principle which he so 
strenuously inculcates, of admitting no ^evidence but that which 
satisfies the reason, prevents me from acceding to many of his 
leading views, particularly in the interpretation of Scripture. 
His psychology I regard as standing on an entirely different ba- 
sis, and to be judged of by its own evidence. This is certainly 



TREFACE. Vll 

worthy of a degree of attention which I am persuaded it will 
eventually receive ; and I would fain have it distinctly under- 
stood, that it is in reference to this part of his system exclusively 
that any such concession is made. 

The reader will perhaps be prompted to inquire why, as I 
have treated the Resurrection in connexion with the Judgment, 
I have not also displayed it in its definite relations to the Second 
Advent, with which it would appear to be equally intimately 
associated in the great scheme of Eschatology. To this I re- 
ply, that an accurate examination of what I have advanced on 
the general subject will readily disclose my own opinion that 
the Second Advent of the Saviour is not affirmed to be 'personal^ 
but spiritual and providential^ and that the event so denomi- 
nated is to be considered as having entered upon its incipient 
fulfilment at a very early period of the Christian dispensation. 
To this view I am compelled to adhere, so long as the declara- 
tion stands unrepealed — " Verily I say unto you, there be some 
standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the 
Son of man coming in his kingdom." If the word of inspira- 
tion can be shown to contain the announcement of any other 
Second Coming than that which commenced in the lifetime of 
the generation then living; and if this can be proved to be truly 
a second^ instead of a third coming, I shall be ready at once to 
embrace it. In the mean time I must confess my mind to be so 
constructed as to be incapable of receiving an alleged doctrine 
of revelation, without adequate evidence that the interpretation 
upon which it is founded is sound. 

I shall, however, after all, deem it strange, if it should not be 
said, that my argument amounts to little, for the reason that it 
assumes to know what God has not been pleased to reveal. The 
simple yac^ of a resurrection, it will probably be maintained, is all 
that the Scriptures announce ; and that it can be nothing short of 
perilous presumption to attempt to determine anything as to the 
nature of the raised body, or the mode by which its resurrection 
is effected. All such attempts are, in the opinion of multitudes, 
to be set down to the account of mere empty speculation, and of 
being wise above what is written. They go, it is said, on the 
principle of subjecting Faith to the ordeal of Reason, and are to 
be peremptorily frowned down by all the genuine reverers of 
holy writ. 



Vm PREFACE. 

Now if it is implied by this, that there is really any more 
assumption on the theory which I propose than on the common 
one, I deny the truth of the implication at once. Indeed, it is 
precisely on the ground of the assumed knowledge of what is 
not and cannot he known, that I dissent from the popular view. 
That view takes it for granted that the truth of Scripture teaches 
the re -construction of the future body out of the dissolved and 
dissipated remains of the present one ; and that, too, by a pure 
miracle, in entire independence of the working of the vital prin- 
ciple. This fact is assumed to be known, because it is held that 
revelation teaches it ; and the knowledge is necessarily made the 
standard by which the alleged ignorance of any contrary theory 
is to be judged and convicted ; for how can any sentiment be ar- 
raigned on the score of ignorance or error, without some assumed 
criterion of knowledge and truth ? Now I distinctly charge up- 
on this assumption, that it is groundless, fallacious, and false. I 
hesitate not to aver, that the knowledge and certainty claimed 
for the prevalent views of the resurrection, and on the ground 
of which vain speculation is charged upon the contrary, have no 
foundation. When once submitted to the ordeal of the un- 
derstanding, they are seen to involve ideas at war with each 
other, and therefore cannot be intelligently received. There is, 
then, to say the least, as much specidation on the one theory as 
on the other ; and if that which is here proposed does not satisfy 
the reason, just as little is reason satisfied by the common view. 

But here I am accosted again by the stern interrogatory. 
What right has Reason to demand satisfaction at all on a point 
of doctrine addressed solely to Faith 1 To this I reply, that 
Reason certainly has a rightful claim to be clearly informed as 
to what 2S the doctrine to be believed ; nor can it possibly be re- 
quired to forego its prerogatives in dealing with a professed reve- 
lation from heaven, containing the points to which our assent is 
demanded. While it is the office of Reason reverently to receive 
all that God has clearly and incontrovertibly taught. Reason 
must still act in determining the true sense of what He has 
taught. It is human Reason that originates the rules of interpre- 
tation for the inspired volume ; and we claim nothing more for it 
than its appropriate function, when it is thus called in to decide 
the meaning of revelation. This meaning, when really at- 
'Sained, must always be in harmony with its own oracles. 



PREFACE. IX 

All truth must of necessity be eternally consistent with itself. 
No man is required to hold views of revelation to which a sound 
and enlightened science or philosophy can solidly object. No 
intelligent believer in the Bible will yield the rationality of his 
faith to the skeptical assailant. He will give to no one on this score 
a vantage ground on which he can laugh in his sleeve at the 
weakness or credulity which receives, as points of faith, dogmas 
at war with known facts or unimpeachable deductions. If the 
averments of that word which professes to have emanated from 
the Omniscient Spirit, clash with any positive, fixed, irrefragable 
truth in the universe, then the word itself must be a forgery and a 
lie ; for God would never set one truth in contradiction to another. 
Panoplied by this principle, which is as firm as the perpetual hills, 
if, in the careful scanning of that word, the letter speaks a lan- 
guage contrary to clearly ascertained facts in nature and sci- 
ence, he will take it as type, figure, allegory, metaphor, symbol, 
accommodation, anthropomorphism — any thing, rather than the 
declaration of absolute verity. His Bible comes from the same 
source with the philosopher's boasted Reason. God is the Infi- 
nite Reason, and it is impossible that the reception of his word 
can involve the denial of that lofty prerogative in man. 

May I hope then for exemption from any special severity of 
judgment, on the score of the freedom with which I have entered 
upon the examination of the doctrine of the Resurrection as 
popularly held? Our grand object of quest, as rational and ac- 
countable creatures, is Truth. What possible interest can any 
man have in adhering to error rather than truth ? What con- 
ceivable motive can weigh with any one to close his eyes to the 
real difficulties which may encompass any particular article of 
his faith ? Can he wink them into non-existence ? Is it not bet- 
ter to look them full in the face, and acknowledge all their force ? 
Is it not well to inquire if there be not some solution of them 
which shall be consistent at once with right reason and with 
sound interpretation ? This is the task which I have essayed 
in the present volume. With what success remains to be seen. 

The idea maintained throughout the work, that the Resur- 
rection is effected by the operation of natural laws, may strike 
some of my readers as a virtual " limiting the Holy One of Is- 
rael," who, as he was originally free and sovereign in the estab- 
lishment of these laws, must be regarded as equally free to dis- 



X PREFACE. 

pense with them in any part of his procedures. This we may 
doubtless admit, provided there is any thing in the nature of the 
case, or in his own declarations, which lays the foundation for 
such a belief. Otherwise, the presumption undoubtedly is, that 
he will adhere to the fixed constitution of things, in bringing 
about the proposed results of his providence, however grand 
or stupendous, or baffling to our comprehension. In the present 
ceise, we believe nothing can be cited from the express intima- 
tions of his word, which enforces upon us the necessity of refer- 
ring the event announced to the purely miraculous agency of 
Omnipotence; and we know too little of the laws operating 
throughout the universe of being, to affirm their incompetency 
to the production of the result in question. 

It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the theory of the 
Resurrection disclosed in this volume, brings the present into en- 
tirely a new relation with the future hfe, and clothes the subject 
of human destiny with an interest to which no reflecting mind 
can be insensible. If well founded, it strikes an effectual blow 
at all those crude anticipations which would throw forward the 
awards of eternity to an indefinitely future period, interposing an 
interval of such extent as greatly to relax their force as moral 
sanctions, and plants us in the closest proximity to the spiritual 
world, with all its unutterable grandeur of interest and power of 
appeal. The ordinary gross conceptions of the local relations 
of heaven and hefl to each other, and to the present sphere of 
our existence, are done away, and we look to the precincts of 
our own bosoms for the constitutive elements of each. 

It remains but to close with an earnest invocation to the di- 
vine Spirit of Truth, to own and crown with his blessing the 
well-meant labor undertaken and accomplished in the present 
volume. G. B. 

New-York, Oct. 1, 1844. 



CONTENTS, 



Introduction. — The knowledge of Revelation Progressive, . 13 

PART L 

The Rational Argument. 

Chapter I. — Objections to the Common View, . . . 31 

Chapter II, — Distinction of Personal and Bodily Identity, . . 58 
Chapter III. — The True Body of the Resurrection as inferred by 

Reason, €7 

PART IL 



The Scriptural ARauMENT* 



Chapter 
Chapter 
Chapter 
Chapter 



Chapter 
Chapter 

Chapter 



I. — Preliminary Remarks, 

II. — The Old Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection, 
III. — Onomatology ; Definition of Terras, 
IV. — Examination of Particular Passages, 
Genesis 17 : 7, 8, . 
Job 19 : 25-27, 
Psalm 16: 9,10, . 
" 17: 15, . 
« 49 : 14, 15, 
Isaiah 25: 7,8, 

« 26: 19, 
Ezekiel37: 1-14, . 
Hosea 6:2,. 

" 13. 14, . 
Daniel 12 : 2, 
V. — The New Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection, 
VI. — Origin and Import of the word 'Resurrection,' 

used in the New Testament, 
VII. — The Resurrection of Christ, . . . . 



85 

92 

94 

96 

97 

99 

104 

105 

108 

111 

114 

121 

123 

126 

131 

141 

144 
151 



Xll 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter VIII. — Examination of Particular Passages, 

1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 

« 16-18, 
" 20-23, 
« 35-37, 
« 38-41, 
" 42-44, 
" 50-53, 
Mat. 5 : 29, 30, . 
" 10: 28, 
"22: 31,32, . 
" 27 : 50-53, 
John 5: 28,29, . 
" 6: 39,40, 
" 11: 21-26, . 
Acts 2 : 29-35, . 
« 24: 14,15, . 
^ Romans 8: 10,11, 

*' 22,23, 

2 Cor. 5: 2-4, . 
" " 10, 

1 Thes. 4: 13-17, 
Philip. 3: 21, 

2 Tim. 2: 16-19, 
-The Resurrection viewed in connection with 

Judgment, 



IX.- 



Chapter ; 

Chapter X. — The First Resurrection and the Judgment of the Dead, 300 



PAGE 

168 
169 
170 
173 
174 
182 
184 
189 
203 
205 
206 
210 
234 
241 
246 
249 
251 
255 
258 
259 
262 
264 
270 
272 



the 



274 



Rev. 20 : 4-6, 

" " 11-15, 

Chapter XL—" The Times of the Restitution of all Things," 

Acts 3: 19-21, . . . . . 
Chapter XII. — Christ's " Delivering up the Kingdom/' 

1 Cor. 15 : 24-28, 

Chapter XIII. — The Conclusion, 



304 
316 
348 
349 
365 
367 
385 



A N A S T A S I S ; 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, &c. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The Knowledge of Revelation Progressive, 

The proposition which is virtually embodied in the head* 
ing of the present section, flows by natural sequence from the 
general and universally admitted truth, that the human race 
itself is progressive, not merely in physical continuity, but 
in mental development. That our collective humanity, 
like each individual that composes it, passes through a child- 
hood, a youth, and a meridian manhood, can scarcely be a 
question with any one who casts his eye at the page of his- 
tory or the universal analogies of nature. We should be far 
from doing violence to truth, should we slightly alter the 
poetic aphorism, and read — ** Progress is heaven's first 
law.'' If so, the thesis may stand unassailable, that the 
knowledge of Revelation, like that of Nature, is destined to 
be continually on the advance. So far as the latter is con- 
cerned it will not be denied by the reflecting mind, that 
even at this period of the world man has arrived but at the 
threshold of that august temple of Truth into which he is 
called to enter, and to become a worshipper at its inmost 
shrines. He is now in the scene of his pupilage — in the 
lowest forms of that school in which he has been set to learn 
the lessons of the universe. 

2 



14 INTRODlTCTrON. 

In this capacity he has two great volumes placed before 
him which are to be the theme of his perpetual pondering — the 
volume of Nature and the volume of Revelation, In regard 
to both these volumes we know not how to resist the belief 
that the same great law holds good, viz. , of gradual develop^ 
ment. No one can entertain a doubt that it has thus far 
been by slow and toilsome steps, that natural science has 
achieved its triumphs. The arcana of creation have hitherto 
been laid open fact by fact, and principle by principle. 
Ages elapsed before even the true method of prosecuting 
physical inquiries was fixed by the genius of the immortal 
author of the Organon. And at the present day Geology, 
for instance, is but just beginning to unwrap the bandages 
which have swathed for countless centuries the mummy 
globe which we inhabit. And so in every other field of the 
naturalist's investigations the process of discovery has been 
alike tardy and gradational. Who can question that the 
most advanced outposts of the territory conquered by the 
science of this generation, will have dwindled and become 
scarcely perceptible to the retroverted eye of the philosopher 
of 1944 ? 

If such, then, be the case with the book of Nature is 
there any reason to doubt that the same law obtains in re- 
gard to the book of Revelation ? Is there the least ground 
for surprise or offence at the intimation, that there may 
be new discoveries in Revelation, as well as in physical 
science? — that the diligent study of the sacred volume may 
open new and unexpected views of truth leading to the 
most momentous results? There is doubtless a strong 
predisposition in pious minds to rest in the persuasion, that 
all the important truths of Revelation have been long since 
ascertained and fixed, at least in their grand outline. It 
will perhaps be admitted that its doctrines and disclosures 
may be more clearly and accurately defined in detail — that 
the different parts of the great scheme may be more nicely 
discriminated, balanced, and adjusted — that its separate dis- 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

tinguishing features may be brought out in bolder relief, 
and their various relations and consequences more dis- 
tinctly exhibited. But still it is supposed that the system 
as a whole is well settled and incapable of extending its 
bounds. The mass of Christians probably look upon the 
progress of Truth somewhat as they do upon that of a con- 
quering power, like that of Israel in Canaan, which has 
completely overrun the limits of the invaded country, and 
attained the ne plus ultra of territorial acquisition, but 
which yet has a good deal to do within those limits in 
achieving an entire subjugation, and in parcelling out the 
region under the new regime. 

Or, to vary our illustration somewhat, the views enter- 
tained by many, perhaps by most, of the Christian world, on 
the subject of Revelation, are similar to those entertained on 
the subject of Geography. We are conscious to ourselves 
of understanding the general form, dimensions, and divi- 
sions of the earth. Its great continents and oceans — its 
mountains, rivers, and islands — are all mapped out to our 
mind's eye. And so also of its political distributions into 
empires and states. We feel entirely assured of having 
mastered — of having brought within our mental ken — all 
the grander features of the globe which we inhabit. And 
if the question were asked what farther knowledge we ex- 
pect to acquire on this subject, we should at once reply, 
that our acquaintance with particular regions — their local 
aspect — their peculiarities of soil, production, and climate-— 
the manners and customs of the races that inhabit them — 
may be indefinitely increased. So in the field before us, 
we admit the possibility of a greater amount of information 
as to the particulars of revealed truth — the clearing up of 
certain verbal difficulties and obscurities in the sacred text — 
and the happier illustration of certain passages from the 
manners and usages of Oriental life — while at the same 
time we no more look for any farther grand and momentous 



16 INTRODUCTION. 

disclosures than we do for the discovery of a third continent 
of equal dimensions with the eastern or western. 

This we believe may be safely affirmed to be the prevailing 
impression and attitude of the Christian mind throughout 
the world, and we would by no means intimate that there is 
not a substantial truth involved in this view of the subject. 
There are doubtless certain great fundamental and para- 
mount facts in revelation which lie open on its very face, 
and beyond which we cannot possibly anticipate any higher 
or ulterior disclosures. Who, for instance, could think for 
a moment of educing from the pages of revelation any 
truth to be set by the side of the sublime central fact of the 
atoning work of Jesus Christ in the matter of man's salva- 
tion ? This constitutes the very core of all inspired truth im- 
parted by God to man, and neither time nor eternity will 
develop any thing to supersede or equal it. So, again, as 
to the great system of moral duties — the code of ethical 
precepts designed to govern the intercourse of men in their 
relations with each other — we have no reason to suppose it 
ever will or can be improved upon, or that any discoveries 
will ever be made that shall supersede, vacate, or alter its 
imperative claims. In whatever other department of re- 
vealed truth we may look for advances to be made, w^e anti- 
cipate none here. It will never be any more nor any less 
clearly our duty than it now is to love God with all our hearts, 
and our neighbor as ourselves, and to do to others as we 
would that they should do to us. 

But while we hold this as an impregnable and indis- 
pensable position, 'we do not hesitate at the same time 
to affirm, that many things connected with this mediatorial 
scheme — many things in its sanctions — many things in its 
typical shadows — many things in its predicted issues — do 
admit of, and will doubtless eventually receive, a vastly fuller 
and clearer exposition than has yet been afforded to the 
world. And, in reference to the discussion upon which we 



INTRODUCTION. 17 

have entered in the present volume, we cannot but very sen- 
sibly feel that we shall labor in vain to commend to our read- 
ers' assent the views advanced, so long as the impression is 
dominant in their minds that the ultimatum of inspired truth 
has already been attained, and that scarcely any thing 
new is to be expected in scriptural elucidations. On this 
point we confess to an extreme anxiety to make our readers 
partakers of our own convictions. We perceive clearly that 
in the course of our ensuing investigations we shall be obliged 
to draw largely on any concessions which they may see fit 
to grant in the outset, that biblical science, like all other 
sciences, is progressive ; and what conception can we form 
of progress in this department which does not modify, and 
in some cases perhaps supersede established ideas 1 

We repeat, then, our main position, that our knowledge 
of the contents of revelation is destined to he progressive ; and 
in support of this position we certainly have the advantage 
of the argument drawn from the general analogy of Nature 
and of Providence. Throughout the whole range of crea- 
tion we recognize the perpetual presence and operation of 
this great law. The principle of progressive advance from 
the imperfect to the finished — from the rude to the refined 
— from the infantile to the mature — from primordial 
elements to elaborate formations — from tender germs to 
ripened fruits — from initial workings to ultimate consumma- 
tions — is every where apparent ; and why should it not hold 
here also ? If progress is heaven's law in every other sphere 
of observation, ihe presumption certainly is that there is no 
exception here ; and we are at liberty to affirm the fact, 
unless some adequate reason can be previously assigned for 
questioning or denying it. But we appeal to positive proof 
of the point which we have assumed, and advert — 

I. To the fact of actual confessed obscurities remaining 
at this day in the word of God, after all the efforts that have 
been made to remove them. Is any thing more obvious than 
that multitudes of such obscurities occur throughout the 



18 



INTRODUCTION. 



pages of holy writ ? Have we not often had occasion to 
complain of them, and to exclaim, '^ O for some Daniel — 
some dissolver of doubts and shewer of hard sentences — to 
unriddle the intractable enigmas !" Does not the most 
casual perusal discover phrases and passages, paragraphs and 
sections, which to the mass of readers are shrouded in a veil 
of triple darkness? This, we admit, is more particularly 
true of the prophetical writings, to which, from their nature, 
a greater degree of obscurity attaches than to any other por- 
tion of the sacred volume. But the characteristic of which 
we speak is not confined to the prophecies. In the histor- 
ical, poetical, typical, and even the preceptive parts, we 
continually encounter passages which baffle our utmost 
powers of apprehension. 

It is indeed true that in all matters of vital importance 
— in all points involving i\iQ fundamentals of a commanded 
faith — the pages of the Old and New Testaments are distin- 
guished by a sun-like lucidness, so that it is no less truly 
than tritely said, that '^ he that runneth may read,'' and 
**the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein." 
Were it otherwise, in fact, the very end of bestowing a 
revelation would be defeated, and the term itself become a 
misnomer ; for surely a revelation not intelligible, would 
be no revelation at all. But notwithstanding the homage 
thus paid to the inspired oracles in this acknowledgment, it 
is vain to deny that vast obscurity does rest upon certain 
portions of the book of God. Chapter after chapter pre- 
sents to multitudes of readers little else than a mere 
dead letter. They may perhaps glean a consistent and use- 
ful sense from detached texts and single expressions, yet as 
to mastering the general drift and argument of the whole — 
seeing the logical connexion of the different parts — and 
eliciting a clear, well-compacted, and satisfactory meaning 
from the writer's language — in this they are obliged to con- 
fess themselves sadly at fault ; and if asked, as Philip 
asked the Ethiopian eunuch, '^Understandest thou what 



INTRODUCTION. 19 

thou reddest?" would be constrained to return the 
eunuch's answer, ** How can I, except some one should 
guide me?" 

Now we propose the question ; whether it is probable 
that these obscurities will always remain to cloud the lustre 
of the word of God ? Is there not every reason to suppose 
that these dark places will be eventually cleared up to the 
entire satisfaction of every mind that is covetous of the 
truth ? If it were not so, would it not be in contravention 
of the highest conceptions we can form of the character of 
God and of the whole analogy of his providence? Can we 
divest ourselves of the impression, that there is something 
derogatory to the wisdom and goodness of God in the idea^ 
that perpetual shades are to rest upon large portions of the 
lively oracles, making them a complete terra incognita 
even to the most ardent explorers in this region of inquiry ? 
Has he filled so large a portion of his word with matter 
calculated merely to defy curiosity — ^to mock research — and 
to disappoint hope? To an enlightened mind there is 
something unwelcome and repulsive in the thought, that 
even any portion of the earth's surface should remain in- 
accessible to the enterprise of travellers and voyagers. We 
do not love to think that mountainous masses of ice shall 
always frown defiance upon the hardy navigator, who would 
urge his way through the perils of arctic seas to the very 
points of the poles. We cannot sit down with perfect com» 
posure under the belief that the interior of our globe shall 
never be more fully known, and the great problems of geology 
remain for ever unsolved. As religious men, we have a 
deep interest in the development of the mysteries of nature ; 
for the more that is known of the works of God, the larger 
is the provision made for the nourishment of devout and 
pious sentiments in the heart. It is utterly beyond the 
power of words ** to wield the matter" how much piety 
would lose were science to be extinguished. 

But if, as the Psalmist tells us, God has ** magnified his 



20 INTRODUCTION. 

word above all his name," can we suppose that the myste- 
ries couched in it shall never be solved ? Is not the glory 
of its Author as much concerned in the development of 
the treasures of revealed truth, as in the illustration of the 
hidden things of science? Are we not conscious of as 
strong an inward moral demand that these obscurities shall 
be cleared up, as that the secrets of creation shall be dis- 
closed? But in all the departments o^ physical inquiry the 
progress of discovery is continually and rapidly onward ; 
and we see not, therefore, why the analogy of Providence 
does not favor the position that the development of scrip- 
tural truth is also progressive. We know assuredly that 
advances have been made in the solution of Scripture mys- 
teries and obscurities, and why should they not continue to 
be made ? We infer the future from the past. We can 
think of no causes that shall arrest the march of clearer and 
still clearer elucidation. 

But how will this result be brought about? Will the 
mere progress of time, without human effort or research, 
remove the veil from these mysteries? Will the discovery 
be spontaneous ? Will the truth utter itself without being 
interrogated? Might we not as soon expect the echo to 
speak without being awakened? Has physical truth ever 
thus shaken off its own envelope, and stood forth self- 
revealed to the gaze and the embrace of its votaries ? 
Does Time alone command Nature to disclose her secrets, 
and does she obey ? Has the chemist ever dreamed that he 
might lay aside his crucible and blow-pipe, and sit down 
with folded arms and wait for the solid substances to resolve 
themselves into gases, before he could determine their com- 
position? Would not the geologist as soon expect that the 
huge mastodons and monsters of a former world should start 
forth in living forms from their sleep of ages, and again 
stalk abroad over the earth, as that their skeleton remains 
should be discovered without digging? Should we have 
now been transported, as on the wings of the wind, in passing 



INTRODUCTION 21 

from place to place, had there been no experiments made on 
the power of steam, and no skill attained in the construc- 
tion of machinery ? Every thing thus far in the progress of 
human improvement has been the result of patient and 
long-continued study — of elaborate and oft-repeated experi- 
ments. 

Why, then, should not the case be the same in the de- 
partment of revelation? Can any sufficient reason be 
assigned why the law of progress which obtains in every 
thing else should not hold here also? Why should not our 
attainments in sacred science depend upon the same con- 
ditions with those of physical science — to wit, the diligent 
and faithful application of the appropriate means for com- 
passing the ends of our inquiries? Have we, then, at this 
day, any signal advantage on the score of means to warrant 
us in the hope of attaining results beyond the measure of 
our fathers in the field of biblical research? Let us look 
for a moment, in the second place, at this question. 

II. The volume of revelation conies to us clothed in the 
drapery of a foreign and a dead language — a language spoken 
in a remote age of the world, and of which we have but ^ew 
monuments, so far at least as the Hebrew is concerned, 
except the Scriptures themselves. It is obvious that we 
understand the record only so far as we understand the lan- 
guage in which it was written. But the means of understand- 
ing the language are constantly multiplying upon us at this 
day, far beyond any thing enjoyed by our predecessors. 
Grammarians, lexicographers, and critics are putting into 
our hands the key to unlock the treasures of Oriental philol- 
ogy ; travellers and missionaries to the East are making us 
familiar with the manners and customs, the monuments and 
traditions, the arts, sciences, and modes of speech, which 
suggest and explain so many of the allusions in the sacred 
text. Add to this the signal advances made in latter times 
in the principles of biblical interpretation — a department 
which, under the title of Hermeneutics, and having for its 



"^'-Z INTRODUCTION. 

object the ascertainment and the application of the true 
canons of interpretation in their reference to the sacred 
writings — is rapidly elevating itself to a high place in the 
circle of positive sciences. Minds of the first order in our 
own and other countries are incessantly engaged in settling 
upon an immovable basis the fundamental rules by which 
the sense of the sacred record is to be determined ; and 
it is every day more and more obvious that philology is 
giving laws to theology. Is it any arrogance in us, there- 
fore — is it any disparagement to our fathers — to lay claim 
to the superior advantages for illustrating Scripture which 
Providence has thrown in our way ? Is it a claim which 
ought to incur the least degree of odium towards those 
who modestly make it? The truth is, new light is forced 
upon us by the very spirit of the age, and we cannot resist 
it if we would. The spirit of investigation is not, and will 
not be, confined to the departments of physical or meta- 
physical science. No narrow-minded taboo, in any part of 
the wide field of inquiry, will be brooked in this age of un- 
shackled research; and it Js utterly in vain to expect any 
exemption for the sacred volume from this searching and 
most inquisitorial scrutiny. We may dread the keen en- 
counter as the lifting up of axes against the carved work 
of the sanctuary, but it cannot be avoided. Men will in- 
quire, investigate, sift, weigh, and reason, in a matter that 
concerns ihem so nearly as a revelation from God. They 
will compare its averments with what they know of its author 
from other sources — ^from his works, from his providence, 
from the inward promptings of their own minds; and it is 
to be remembered that they jvill come to the investigation 
of scriptural truth with the same habits of close and accu- 
rate analysis which are acquired in scientific inductions. 
If there is strictness in the one department, there will not 
be looseness in the other. And no one can question that 
there is at this day a sterner demand for evidence — a greater 
impatience of mere traditionary authority — a more rigid 



IMRODUCTION, 23 

requisition for positive certainty — in all the fields of know- 
ledge than ever before. The result of all this, we think, 
must be a deeper insight into the interior soul of revelation, 
and a more luminous apocalypse of its shrouded mysteries. 

And in this connexion we cannot forbear to adduce the 
authority of such a name as that of Bacon, the father if not 
of philosophy, at least of philosophizing. *' Let no man," 
says he, ^' taking the credit of a sobriety and moderation ill 
applied, think or maintain that men can search too far in 
the book of God's word ; but rather let them excite them- 
selves to the search, and boldly advance in the pursuit of an 
endless progress in it; only taking heed lest they apply 
their knowledge to arrogance and not to charity; to osten- 
tation and not to use." 

These are sentiments worthy the immortal name that 
sanctions them, and they must surely find a response in 
every bosom in which an enlightened reason has taken up 
its abode. But go back in idea two or three centuries, from 
the time of Francis Bacon to the age of his predecessor 
Roger Bacon, and how different would have been the recep- 
tion of such sentiments ! Imagine the entrance of a big- 
oted devotee of the Romish hierarchy into the laboratory 
of the philosopher, while employed in the midst of his cruci- 
bles and retorts and other scientific implements. We can 
easily picture to ourselves the sinister and lowering expres- 
sion stamped upon the brow of the minion of the mass, as 
he gazes upon the strange apu^m^s before him. We see 
him looking upon the glowing^BTcible with its fused con- 
tents as he would upon a witch's caldron burning with red, 
blue, and yellow flames, and filled with incantations for 
holding unhallowed converse with the world of spirits. We 
can easily imagine, moreover, that he might, in the plentitude 
of his zeal for the interests of religion and the glory of 
God, give a significant hint to the philosopher of the thun- 
ders of the Vatican and the lightnings of the Inquisition. 
But what would the intrepid student of nature say, in reply 



24 INTRODUCTION. 

to these ominous givings-out of the son of the church ? 
Would he not stand erect in the conscious dignity of reason 
and truth, and say, that the univer^se ivas made to be known, 
and the human faculties given by which to know it. And 
^\hy, we would ask, may we not say the same of revelation? 
Was it not given to be understood? And is there any 
more harm in the theologian's interrogating Scripture, than 
in the chemist's, the geologist's, and the astronomer's inter- 
rogating nature ? 

It is indeed true that there exists a deep-rooied impres- 
sion that it is only with ihe plainer parts of revelation that 
we can profitably have to do — that the unknoicn, when 
brought to light, may possibly in some way conflict with the 
known — and that, especially, (h^ prophetic parts of the Bible 
were designedly sealed and shut up from human intelli- 
gence; so that it is nothing short of positive presumption to 
attempt to penetrate and solve their profound problems. We 
look upon them as if they were the mystical thunders whose 
utterances the prophet was commanded to seal up and not 
make known ; or perhaps like the revelations which Paul 
had in heaven, and which it was not lawful to utter. Nay, 
nothing is more natural than to associate the ideas, if not 
the epithets, of fanciful — chimerical — visionary — with any 
attempt, however sober, to pierce the veil of futurity. So 
^ that it is not to be wondered at that hundreds of inquiring 
spirits have been frowned and frightened away from this 
sphere of inquiry by the iJMxe of prejudices wholly baseless 
and unreasonable. Undf|^^se circumstances it cannot be 
gratuitous to endeavor by all means to remove preposses- 
sions so adverse to the interests both of reason and religion. 
And there is, if we mistake not, at this day a state of 
things in the general mind of Christendom, which impe- 
riously demands such an investigation into the contents of 
revelation, and into the very principles on which it is con- 
structed, as we now propose to make. However tranquil 
may be our own repose upon the pillow of our faith, that of 



INTRODUCTION. 25 

thousands of others is disturbed and agitated by the intru- 
sion of doubts that rush in upon them like an army of grim 
spectres. These harassing inroads are not always the off- 
spring of an infidel skepticism, nor do they avail to shake the 
general belief in the truth of the Scriptures as a revelation 
from God. But they trouble the spirit — they are distressing, 
because they come in the semblance oi i^easonahle doubts — 
doubts founded upon a reasonable philosophy, the conclu- 
sions of which the mind does not know how to resist; and 
therefore it would be very wrong to charge them to the 
account of a moral obliquity, or aversion to the truth, or to 
a morbid propensity to vain speculation. They are doubts 
and difficulties entertained by minds which cherish the pro- 
foundest respect for the sacred volume, and it is precisely 
because they do cherish these sentiments towards it, that they 
are so disturbed by the apparent conflict between its state- 
ments and those convictions which they receive, and cannot 
but receive, both from the intuitions of their own spirits and 
the decisive results of scientific research. If they could 
give up the oracles of Scripture, they would make short work 
with their misgivings, and extinguish them at a stroke ; but 
this they cannot do. That holy book has taken such a hold 
of the very central persuasions of their souls, and has so 
intrenched itself in the innermost folds of their feelings, 
that it is the sundering of vital ties to think of renouncing it, 
and launching out without its guidance into the boundless 
deep of human conjecture. Hence the mental struggle of 
which we speak. 

Now, we repeat, it would be doing the grossest injus- 
tice to multitudes of fninds in this sate to recognize in these 
inward waverings and agitations merely the repugnance of 
unsanctified nature to yield implicit obedience to divine 
authority. Does divine authority require a 6Zmc? deference, 
an unintelligent assent, to its dic1,a, merely because they 
emanate from the supreme will in the universe ? Does not 
God deal with men as men^ and is not reason a constituent 



26 INTRODUCTION. 

part of man's nature, which in no circumstances he can be 
called to forego ? Does not the Most High himself make 
his appeal to this principle when he says, '' Come, let us 
reason together'' ? And how far does any man's religion 
differ from enthusiasm that is not regulated by the balance- 
wheel of a sound and enlightened reason? 

The truth is, as the human mind is constituted, it is 
utterly impossible to refrain from asking the questions to 
which we have referred, and which bear upon the apparent 
conflict between the revelations of Scripture and the revela- 
tions of 'science. If, for instance, the obvious literal and 
grammatical sense of the sacred record leads me to believe 
that the material globe, with the various orders of its inhab- 
itants, was first spoken into existence six thousand years 
ago, and geology at the same time brings to my mind abso- 
lute demonstrations, which I cannot possibly resist without 
doing violence to the fundamental laws of belief, that it has 
existed thousands and myriads of years before that time, 
what am I to think ? I am brought to a stand at once. I 
must pause and ponder on this discrepancy. I must cast 
about for some adequate mode of harmonizing these variant 
views. What will it avail to tell me, when I am assured to 
the contrary, that, as geology is merely in its infancy, its 
asserted results are not to be depended upon, and that it is 
altogether too early to build such sweeping conclusions upon 
such a slender induction of facts? I know th3.t this is what 
no one will affirm who is acquainted w^ith the facts. And 
what should we think of the asseverations of a stage-driver 
who should affirm, in opposition to Lyell, or Silliman, or 
Hitchcock, that he had travelled for years over a particular 
section of country, and had never seen the least evidence of 
such strata and formations as the geologists affirmed to exist 
there ? 

But, if the facts are such as the science maintains, then 
I am necessarily driven upon some mode of accounting for 
them in accordance with the statements of holy writ ; for, 



INTRODUCTION. ^/ 

as the same God is the author of creation and of revelation, 
it is impossible that the teachings of the one, rightly under- 
stood, should conflict with those of the other. In this at- 
tempt to reconcile the two I may not perhaps be at once 
successful. I may possibly at first adopt a theory which I 
may be subsequently compelled to abandon. But I will still 
hold with tenacious grasp upon the intrinsic truth of the 
two records, assured that in some way or other the desired 
light will shine upon the subject, and effectually remove all 
its uncertainties and difficulties. 

We may well tremble for the citadel of our faith, if the 
issues and conclusions of physical philosophy are to be ar- 
rayed against the letter of revelation, and no effort is made 
to bring them to a tally. It is undeniable that the induc- 
tions of a true science carry with them an irresistible, an 
overwhelming, authority to the human mind. We cannot 
gainsay them ; and if the apprehended sense of holy writ 
appears to the man of science to be opposed to these con- 
clusions — if he finds the statements of the sacred writers on 
physical subjects so utterly impracticable and unyielding 
that by no process can he bring them to agree with the plain 
facts and the inevitable inferences of his philosophy — let no 
one be surprised to find the authority of revelation giving 
way before the authority of reason. We do not say that this 
ought to be the case, but we do say that it tmll be ; and minds 
of the first order will be thrown off into the dreary regions of 
blank theism. The pickaxe and the spade of the geologist 
will undermine the substructions of his own faith, and the 
records of revelation will be to him merely the superficial 
inscription, like that on the pillar of Pharos, which will dis- 
appear under the crumbling touch of time, while the irre- 
fragable and eternal truth will loom out to his view in the 
relics of beasts, birds, fishes, and plants, which medallion 
the rocky strata of the earth, and chronicle the lapse of un- 
told ages before the era of Genesis. 

As it would seem, then, that the moral exigences of the 



28 INTRODUCTION. 

human mind at tlys day demand a fuller development of the 
character of revelation in its relations to general truth, so 
we cannot doubt that the progress of scientific discovery is 
destined to afford the means of clearly defining the prin- 
ciples on which the inspired oracles are to be interpreted, 
in those portions of them which relate to scientific subjects. 
The grand desideratum has hitherto been in fixing the pre- 
cise boundaries of the region which revelation claims to 
occupy as appropriately its own — the limits within which it 
professes to speak with a voice supremely authoritative and 
absolutely infallible. It has been deemed in former ages 
that the plain and literal averments of holy writ, on any and 
every subject, were to be considered as an infallible crite- 
rion of truth, and that it was a culpable presumption to think 
of appealing to any other. The natural consequence of this 
has been, that the progress of physical science has had to 
encounter, at almost every stage, the opposition of those who 
have feared that the credit of the Scriptures might be endan- 
gered if the claimsof philosophy should be conceded. While 
we must honor the loyalty to revelation that has been evinced 
in this prous sensitiveness to every thing that seemed to come 
in conflict with its statements, we cannot at the same time 
but be pained and surprised at the tardy process by which 
the conclusion has been arrived at, that the grand scope of 
the Bible is moral, and not scientific, and that no important 
interest of revelation is jeoparded by admitting that, on 
a multitude of subjects which come within the range of 
man's unassisted powers, the Spirit of inspiration professes 
nothing more than to speak accordingto visible appearances 
and popular notions. This fact is now beginning to be very 
generally recognized, and no enlightened mind dreams that 
what is gained to science is necessarily lost to Scripture. 
Still we have no idea that the extent to which this principle 
is to be applied is at this day at all adequately appreciated, 
and therefore we shall not be in the least surprised if the 
present attempt to make the ascertained results of phi/ si- 



INTRODUCTION. 29 

ology a test by which to try many of the literal declarations 
of the sacred writers, should be regarded as a bold and haz- 
ardous coming in collision with its sacred verities. But as 
we have well pondered the ground on which we adventure 
to tread, we advance with great confidence to our conclu- 
sions, and shall tranquilly abide the issue. It is possible, 
indeed, that we may have erred in the specific results which 
we annou^nce, and if so, this may be shown on satisfactory 
grounds ; but we have no fear of being convicted, before 
an enlightened tribunal, of having perilled the weal of the 
sacred oracles by the advocacy of a false principle of inter- 
pretation. We cannot conceive that the homage due to a 
revelation from God requires us to forego the inevitable de- 
ductions of that reason with which he has endowed us, nor 
do we think it possible that that word will ever achieve its 
predicted triumphs over the human mind, till its teachings, 
on all points that come within the sphere of a true philoso- 
phy, shall be seen to harmonize with its legitimate deduc- 
tions. This, however, will still leave a hallowed province 
of purely wiara/ announcements, in which revelation utters 
its oracles as speaking out of an eternal silence which no 
voice of reason could ever break. 



PART I 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 



CHAPTER I. 
Objections to the Common View. 

If the position maintained in our preceding pages be 
well founded — that there is to be an onward progress in our 
knowledge of Revelation, as there confessedly is in the 
knowledge of Nature — it follows, of course, that we have no 
more reason to be surprised at the announcement, we will 
not say of new truths, but of new vieivs of old truths, in bib- 
lical science, than at the announcement of new discoveries 
in physical science. There may be a difference of opinion 
as to the possible extent of this progress, but none, we think, 
as to the fact itself It is impossible to assign a reason why 
the outgoings of the human intellect should confine them- 
selves to the limits of purely scientific research. They will 
certainly aim at least to penetrate the central abysses of 
Revelation. 

In the number of those themes which invite the most 
profound inquiry, there is one on which, of all others, we 
look with the most anxious and yearning solicitude, longing 
for light as they that watch for the morning. It is a theme, 
in regard to which the posture of thousands of human 
spirits is that of seekers and suitors surrounding an oracle, 
standing as with bowed heads and hands folded on the 
bosom, silently, reverently, but most earnestly, awaiting the 
awful response. We allude to the mode of our existence in 
another world ; to the form and conditions of being to which 



3*2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

we are introduced through the mysterious gateway of death. 
This is the grand question of questions to every self-conscious 
and reflecting mind : *' If a man die, shall he live again ?" 
From the inmost depths of his spirit he cannot but send 
forth the anxious interrogation, ^' What am I to be — where 
am I to be — when this mortal coil is shuffled off?" Is there 
any thing in reason or in revelation that will solve for us the 
momentous problem? The most casual inspection of the 
inspired pages does indeed certify us of the fact of a con- 
tinued existence; but nothing is said, except in the most 
general terms, of the mode. We have the assurance of en- 
tering at death upon an eternal state of retribution, accord- 
ing to the moral character formed in the present life ; but no 
answer is returned to the solemn questionings which would 
fain elicit the realities of that trans-sepulchral world. The 
great truths concerning that world have, from age to age, 
been received by faith. By faith have multitudes in all gen- 
erations entered upon it. In thousands and millions of 
instances has the believing soul entered the dark domains 
of the grave, buoyed up by the sustaining assurances 
of the Gospel, that whether in life or in death it shall '' go 
well with the righteous." We cannot question, for a mo- 
ment, that this is practically an amply sufficing support, and 
that we have ground for everlasting gratitude on this score, 
even if we should never know, with any more certainty than 
we now do, the secrets of that unexplored region, till we 
each enter it for ourselves. Still we cannot but tremulously 
inquire. It is impossible but that the restless reason of 
man should urge its researches in this direction. It cannot 
abide contented, while no answer is returned to the queries 
which are prompted by the laws and impulses of its own 
essential nature. If it fails to read in the record of inspira- 
tion a satisfactory solution of its doubts, it will put nature 
to the rack, and endeavor to extort the secret of its teach- 
incrs on this absorbing theme. It will dive into the depths 
of physiology and psychology, and learn if any thing ib 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMKN'i'. 33 

taught by the laws of our physical or rnei:itai organization, 
which can throw the least gleam of light on the mysteries 
of life and the condition of our future being. We see, 
beyond question, that in other departments the progress of 
scientific truth has enabled us to put a more correct inter- 
pretation upon many points of Scripture ; aYid why is it not 
possible it may be so here ? Does any one now^ think of 
understanding the command of Joshua to the sun and moon, 
precisely as he would before the true system of astronomy 
was ascertained ? Does any one, acquainted with the demon- 
strated results of geology, gather precisely the same ideas 
from the first chapter of Genesis that he did before that 
science was fixed upon its present firm basis ? 

If, then, in these departments we are conscious that the 
discoveries of science have given us clearer information rela- 
tive to the true sense of revelation, why is it not conceivable 
that, from the same source, we may obtain a clew to conduct 
us somewhat nearer the truth on the great theme before us? 
Certainly, the more perfectly we understand the inward 
structure and functions of our own frames — the more com- 
pletely we become masters of that wondrous economy which 
constitutes us what we notc\re, the nearer, doubtless, shall 
we approach to a knowledge of what we shall hereafter be. 
Nothing is better known to intelligent men than that im- 
mense advances have actually been made, within the last half 
century, in the physiology of the human system ; and though 
the grand agency by which the animal functions are carried 
on has eluded research — tJie vital principle — yet approxi- 
mations have continually been made towards it, and we see 
not why we should abandon, as utterly hopeless, the pros- 
pect of one day compassing the grand central truth of our 
being. 

We can easily conceive that a naturalist, who should never 
have seen nor heard of a butterfly, might, upon investigating 
the inner structure of the caterpillar, and finding involved 
within it the rudiments of another organization, furnished 



o4 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRF.CTIGN. 

witli a curious apparatus adapted to some other sphere of 
existence — that he might form, at least, a very probable con- 
jecture as to the mode of being upon which the developed 
insect would enter when disengaged from its present grovel- 
ling tenement. He would doubtless be at fault as to many 
of the details o*f the future economy of the insect, but he 
would still be able to give a very shrewd guess as to the 
sphere and the mode of existence into which it should 
emerge, and of the general laws by which it should be gov- 
erned. In like manner, we see nothing irrational or improb- 
able in the idea, that a more intimate knowledge of the 
interior elements and functions of our physical and psychical 
constitution may finally enable us to educe the paramount 
laws of our future being, and bring us to a true * Physical 
Theory of another Life.'* The mere fact that any truth, 
however mysterious, is a truth of revelation, does not prevent 
its being at the same time a truth of nature, and amenable 
to its laws. A revealed fact, which is at one age of the 
world received simply by faith, m^y afterwards become a 
fact of the reason — something which we know as well as 
believe. We see, therefore, no special grounds, from the 
peculiar sanctity of the themes of revelation, to forego the 
most rigid researches into their nature, or for being alarmed 
at the thought of bringing them more and more within the 



* The work bearing this title, which has fallen into my hands since 
the major part of the present volume was written, contains a striking 
paragraph to the same effect with the above. " In every case where a 
transition from one mode of life to another is to take place, the germs of 
the future being are wrapped in the organization of the present being ; 
and in every such instance a well practised naturalist, in examining it (sup- 
posing it to have been hitherto unknown to him) during its initial stage, 
would, without hesitation, announce it to have in prospect another and 
higher mode of life ; for he would discern within, or upon it, the symbols 
of its destined progression, and he would find in its habits certain instincts 
that have reference to a more perfect manner of existence. Now is it so 
with man? We have already taken this for granted." p. 140. 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT, « 35 

limits of our positive cognitions. It is by no means impos- 
sible that the most signal miracles on record may ultimately 
resolve themselves into the operation of some higher law, 
which may never have been previously known except to its 
Author. Certain it is, that from that principle of progress 
which is so congenial, not to say congenital, to the human 
mind, the field of our knowledge must eventually take in an 
immensity of subjects which are at present beyond its 
sphere. 

If, then, we are authorized to anticipate subsidiary light 
from this source, in solving the great problem of human ex- 
istence in another world, is it not reasonable to expect, that 
the grand cardinal doctrine of the Resurrection should be 
illustrated by the same means? This doctrine, constituting 
as it does one of the main announcements of Christianity, 
and connecting itself with the most sacred hopes of the be- 
liever, urges its claims upon our profound attention. It is, 
indeed, a doctrine which is seldom interrogated. It is con- 
sidered, for the most part, as one of those mysterious dis- 
closures which are commended to our naked credence, and 
about which we are not to indulge a speculative curiosity or 
to ask prying questions. It is supposed, by the mass of 
Christians, that we are to regard the Resurrection in no 
other light than as a simple fact, the truth of which we are 
to receive on the bare authority of the divine word, and the 
accomplishment of which we are to expect solely on the 
ground of the divine omnipotence. But is there, indeed, 
any interdict laid upon inquiry in this deg^artment rather 
than any other ? Is the subject fenced about with a balus- 
trading of sanctity, which it is sacrilege or profanation to 
attempt to pass through ? Must we not, necessarily, submit 
every position propounded in revelation to that intelligence 
by which alone we can understand it? Understand \i, we 
say — for we must understand it, in order to believe it. Let us 
here be apprehended aright. We say that we must understand 
a proposition, in order to believe it. We may not, indeed, 



m 



THE DOCTRINE Oi Till. liEStR RECTI ON. 



understand the mode in which the asserted truth or fact 
exists ; but the verbal 'proposition affirming it we must under- 
stand, or we cannot believe it. That all material bodies 
gravitate to the earth, is a fact the mode of which I do not 
by any means comprehend ; but I have no difficulty in under- 
standing the proposition which affirms the fact. So, that 
God is three in one sense, and one in another, is a proposi- 
tion that comes at once within the grasp of my intellect, 
though my utmost endeavors to conceive of the mode of this 
existence are completely baffled. In like manner, we do not 
hesitate to assert, that although it may not be possible to 
comprehend the 7node in which the resurrection of the body 
may be brought about, yet I must understand the terms in 
which the doctrine is announced. In other words, I must be 
able to affix an intelligible sense to the language employed 
for that purpose. Yet here is precisely the difficulty in re- 
gard to the doctrine as popularly held. We ask for a plain 
and explicit statement of the doctrine. What is the propo- 
sition, the belief of which will constitute me a believer in 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body ? To one who 
has not particularly reflected upon the subject, it might 
seem that there were no special difficulty on this score ; but 
a closer consideration will probably reveal to multitudes of 
minds the vagueness and obscurity of their previous con- 
ceptions. 

Should it be replied, in general terms, to our question, 
that the truth claiming credence is, that the body which 
we consign to the dust is again to be raised and reanimated 
at some future day; we rejoin at once, that this reply does 
not cover the ground of the difficulty. The simple asser- 
tion that the dead body is to be raised does not constitute 
an intelligible proposition, for the reason that it leaves it 
utterly uncertain what body is meant. A resurrection 
is indeed predicated of a body, but this is a very different 
thing from the resurrection of the body, and our inquiry 
cannot possibly be satisfied without a more minute spe- 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 37 

cification. No fact in physiological science is better 
ascertained, than that the human body, in regard to its 
constituent particles, is in a state of constant flux. It 
is perpetually undergoing a process of waste and repara- 
tion. Strictly speaking, no man has the same body now 
that he had seven years ago, as it is in about this period 
that a complete change is held to take place in the bodily 
structure, by which we may be said to be corporeally reno- 
vated. This is a fact established by physiology, and the 
proof of it, we believe, is entirely beyond question, and 
must form an indispensable element in any judgment which 
we pronounce upon the subject. The phrase, the hody^ 
does not accurately represent the object intended, if the idea 
conveyed by it be restricted to the body as existing at any 
one moment. The idea of existence in continuity is indis- 
pensable to it. The question then again recurs — What 
body is to be raised ? A person who dies at the age of 
seventy has had ten different bodies. Which of these is to 
be the body of the resurrection 1 Is it the body of infancy, 
of childhood, of youth, of manhood, or of old age ? Or is it 
the aggregate of all these ? If we go back to the days of the 
Antediluvians and apportion the number of the bodies of 
Methusaleh, for instance, to the length of his life, and then 
suppose the w^hole to be collected into one vast corporeity, 
we should indeed be reminded that, as '^ there were giants 
in those days," so there will he giants in the day of the 
resurrection ! 

It is obvious that a very grave difficulty from this source 
pertains to the prevalent theory of the resurrection of the 
body, and one which we discover no mode of obviating on 
that theory. In the following extracts from ** Pearson on 
the Creed," whose statements of doctrine are for the most 
part singularly luminous, and who has, perhaps, enunciated 
this doctrine with more explicitness than almost any other 
writer, it will be seen that his explanation goes throughout 
upon a basis that fails to recognize entirely any such prin- 

3 



38 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 

ciple of incessant change in the bodily structure as a sound 
physiology forces us to admit. Whether he was not aware 
of the fact in question, or did not duly appreciate its bear- 
ings upon the grand point in debate, we know not ; but it 
obviously leaves the doctrine open to the full force of an 
objection, which, as it could not be expected to have oc- 
curred to the ancient fathers of the church, would neither 
be likely to have arrayed itself before the mind of one who 
was principally occupied in embodying their opinions on the 
various articles of the Christian creed. ^' That the same 
body, not any other, shall be raised to life, which died ; 
that the same flesh which was separated from the soul at 
the day of death shall be united to the soul at the last day ; 
that the same tabernacle which was dissolved shall be raised 
up again ; that the same temple which was destroyed shall 
be rebuilt, is most apparent out of the same word, most evi- 
dent upon the same grounds upon which we believe there 
shall be any resurrection. '^ (Art. xi. p. 568.) So again, 
in a subsequent paragraph : *^ We can therefore no otherwise 
expound this article teaching the resurrection of the hody^ 
than by asserting that the bodies which have lived and died 
shall live again after death, and that the same flesh which 
is corrupted shall be restored ; whatsoever alteration shall 
be made shall not be of their nature, but of their condition; 
not of their substance, but of their qualities.'^ So in va- 
rious other passages he reiterates again and again the asser- 
tion, that it is the same body that died that is to be raised, 
and even intimates that this identity is essentially involved 
in the very term resurrection : *^ So that, v/hen I say there 
shall be a resurrection of the dead, I must intend thus much, 
that the bodies of men which live and are dead shall revive 
and rise again. For at the death of man nothing falleth but 
his body, ' the spirit goeth upward,' and no other body 
falleth but his own ; and therefore the body, and no other 
but that body, must rise again to make a resurrection. If 
we look upon it under the notion of reviviscency, which 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 39 

is more ordinary in the Hebrew language, it proves as much, 
for nothing properly dieth but the body ; the soul cannot 
be killed ; and nothing can revive but that which dieth. 
Or, to speak more punctually, the man falleth not in respect 
of his spirit, but of his flesh ; and therefore he cannot be 
said to rise again but in respect of his flesh which fell : man 
dieth not in reference to his soul, which is immortal, but his 
body ; and therefore he cannot be said to revive but in refer- 
ence to his body before deprived of life ; and because no' other 
flesh fell at his death, no other body died but his own, there- 
fore he cannot rise again but in his own flesh, he cannot re- 
vive again but in his own body." (Art. xi. p. 568.) 

In all this it is palpable that no regard is had to the phys- 
iological objection which we are urging, and which is alto- 
gether of too serious a nature to be overlooked in any formal 
statement of the doctrine ; yet the able and excellent bishop 
now quoted tells us that from this ** we may easily perceive 
what every man is obliged to believe, and understood to pro- 
fess, when he confesseth a belief of the resurrection of the 
body ; for thereby he is conceived to declare thus much : I 
am fully persuaded of this as of a most necessary and infal- 
lible truth, that as it is appointed for all men once to die, so 
it is also determined that all men shall rise from death ; that 
the souls separated from our bodies are in the hand of God 
and live; that the bodies, dissolved into dust or scattered 
into ashes, shall be re-collected in themselves and re-united 
to their souls ; that the same flesh which lived before shall 
be revived ; that the same numerical bodies which did fall 
shall rise ; that the resuscitation shall be universal, no man 
excepted, no flesh left in the grave ; that all the just shall be 
raised to a resurrection of life, and all the unjust to a resur- 
rection of damnation ; that this shall be performed at the 
last day, when the trump shall sound : and thus I believe 

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 

But can this be an intelligent belief? What definite 
ideas can any man attach to the terms in which the doctrine 



40 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

is conveyed ? Can any one believe in opposition to his posi- 
tive knowledge? Now we know that the bodies deposited 
in the grave are not the same bodies with those that pre- 
viously existed in the order of physical succession. If the 
language above quoted be construed in the utmost strictness 
of its import, it forces upon us the conclusion, that the iden- 
tical body from which the soul took its departure at the hour 
of death, is the body the particles of which are to be re- 
collected and re-constructed at the era of the resurrection. 
But why shall the preference be given to these particular 
bodies, when, as is well known, they are often withered and 
wasted by consumptions, swollen by dropsies, mangled by 
wounds, made hideous by deformities, curtailed of limbs, or 
become partially putrid by gangrenes ? If the material par- 
ticles of the body are to be reassembled at all, why not rather 
suppose that it will be those which composed it in the period 
of its prime, in its utmost vigor and beauty? 

But what shall we say, upon this theory, of the resurrection 
of deceased infants ? If they are hereafter to assume the 
same bodies in which they died, is it not a fair inference that 
they will forever retain these bodies ? And shall we sup- 
pose that, however much their minds may expand in the 
lapse of the endless ages before them, they shall still inhabit 
the miniature tabernacles in which they drew their first and 
their last breath? Shall the venerableness of angelic wis- 
dom forever display itself in the persons, and utter itself 
through the lips, of beatified babes? Or are we to believe 
that the bodies of the resurrection will grow in the celestial 
sphere to which they are introduced ? Had Newton died in 
his infancy would he still have assumed, after thousands of 
years, the same corporeal stature and aspect as we now 
may suppose to pertain to him at the close of that period? 

But, waving all objection on this score, the doctrine of 
the resurrection of the same body, in any sense whatever, 
encounters difficulties in our view absolutely insuperable, 
arising from the changes and new combinations which the 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 41 

particles of the dead body undergo in the interval between 
death and the resurrection. Who does not know that 
the luxuriant vigor and verdure of the wheat-crops wav- 
ing over the field of Waterloo are owing to a source of 
fertility which the Belgic husbandman nerer conveyed to 
the soil ? 

Jam seges est ubi Troja fuit, resecanda falce, 
Luxuriat Phrygio sanguine pinguis humus. 

Rich harvests wave where mighty Troy once stood, 
Birth of a soil made fat with Phrygian blood. 

The putrescent relics of the goodly structure which once en- 
shrined a human soul are resolved into the dust of the earth. 
The dust springs up in the varied forms of vegetable life. 
The beasts of the field crop the grasses and the herbs which 
derive their succulence from the constituent materiel of the 
bodies of buried men. Out of these eaters comes forth 
sweetness, and the flesh which was fed by the flesh of the 
fathers goes to the sustenance of the flesh of the sons. To 
whom shall these particles belong in the day of their final 
recall from these varied compositions ? Will it not require 
the whole vegetable and animal world to be decomposed, in 
order to extricate the assimilated portions and give to each his 
due ? And how can the matter ever be adjusted ? The par- 
ticles that now belong to one body have previously belonged 
lo some other ; whose shall they be in the resurrection ? — 
as the Sadducees asked respecting the wife of seven hus- 
bands. And what shall we say of the case of those who 
have fallen victims to the barbarous rage and horrid hanker- 
ings of cannibals ? Who shall be the rightful claimants, in 
the day of adjudication, when specific particles have been 
incorporated by perfect assimilation into two different bodies? 
We are aware of the answer which Augustin (De Civit. 
Dei, Lib. xxii. c. 20) returns to this form of the objection : 
"• The flesh in question shall be restored to the man in whom 
it first became human flesh ; for it is to be considered as 



42 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

borrowed by the other man, and, like borrowed money, to 
be returned to him from whom it was taken." But the dif- 
ficulty is to find the first proprietor. In the endless cycles 
of change it is scarcely more the work of imagination than 
of reason to conceive, that a portion of the matter which 
once entered into the body of Goliath of Gath may have found 
its way into the flesh of Alexander's horse, Bucephalus, from 
which it might be traced till lodged in the person of some 
dancing dervish of an eastern city, whirling about in as 
many antic gyrations as ever did Bucephalus himself when 
attempted to be mounted by any one but his royal rider. 
But suppose the sojourning particles to be traced back to 
the giant of the Philistines, have we yet reached their ulti- 
mate destination? Whence did he obtain them? May 
there not have been a prior claimant still? And may not 
his title be challenged by another still prior, and so on indefi- 
nitely ? Suppose an individual body at the present day to 
consist of a million of particles ; what is easier than to con- 
ceive that each of these particles was derived from one of a 
million of bodies that have lived in former ages ? If these 
bodies were each to claim its own on the ground of the same 
right which the present possessor has to them, what would be 
left to him^ from whence to form a resurrection body ? But 
each one of this million of bodies might, perhaps, owe its com- 
ponent particles, in like manner, to as many predecessors; and 
we think it a fair question whether, if we were to follow out 
the supposition to its legitimate results, it would not compel 
the conclusion that the whole human race must be resolved 
back into Adam; and every animal, and every vegetable, 
back into the first animal and the first plant ever created. 

The objection which constitutes the burden of our pres- 
ent argument obviously resolves itself into the difficulty of 
conceiving of any fixed relation between the body that dies 
and the body that is raised. So far as we are able to appre- 
hend the prevalent sentiments of the Christian world in re- 
gard to this subject, they suppose that the same body which 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 43 

is consigned to its native dust is at some distant day, and in 
some unknown manner, to be raised again and re-con- 
structed, and the disembodied spirit, after a long exile, to 
be restored to its primitive habitation, newly fashioned and 
furnished by the hand of Omnipotence, To this view we 
urge the objection, that, by the law of the animal economy, 
the body in this life is continually changing, and conse- 
quently that it conveys no definite conception to the mind 
to say that the body will be raised, unless it is clearly speci- 
fied what particular body is meant. Nothing is clearer 
than that the principle above stated enforces the necessary 
admission of a succession of bodies ; and if so, we are at lib- 
erty to demand which one of the series is to be raised. If a 
man retained precisely the same body unchanged from his 
natal to his dying day, the difficulty would not be so glaringly 
insurmountable ; but even in that case, as the resurrection 
body is to be a spiritual body, it confounds our faculties to 
attempt to imagine of what use the former material and 
fleshly particles are to be in the formation of a purely spir- 
itual body. Is it not as easy for Omnipotence to form a 
spiritual body entirely new, without reference to any pre- 
existing materials, as to elaborate one out of the gross com- 
ponent parts of a previous body ? And is not Mr. Locke's 
remark, in his letter to Stillingfleet, perfectly well founded, 
that *' it would be hard to determine, if that were demanded, 
what greater congruity the soul hath with any particles of 
matter which were once united to it, but are now so no 
longer, than it hath with particles of matter that were never 
united to it?" 

We repeat, then, that the common view of the resurrec- 
tion labors, in our opinion, fatally on the score of a con- 
ceivable relation between the present and the future body. 
Even admitting, as of course we must, that the power of God 
is competent to form bodies of the same external configura- 
tion, but of more glorious texture, and to unite disembodied 
souls with them, still the question forces itself upon us — 



44 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

What relation exists between the original, putrefied, decom- 
posed, and dissipated body, and the sublimated, glorious, 
incorruptible fabric which is to succeed ; — wj^at the rela- 
tion in virtue of which I can call such a body miney and 
say, " Behold my body raised from the tomb and animated 
anew V 

We know it is common for poets and poetical declaimers 
to give loose to imagination, and portray a scene which 
shall work powerfully on the passions, while at the same 
time it is as far from scriptural truth as it is from sound 
philosophy. Thus, in Young's poem, entitled ** The Last 
Day,'* we have the germ of a multitude of similar descrip- 
tions, which have been amplified to pages of homiletic dec- 
lamation ; as, for instance, in the sermons of Pres. Davies, 
and also in one of the eloquent discourses of the Rev. Mr. 
Melville of London : 

** Now monuments prove faithful to their trust. 
And render back their long committed dust ; 
Now charnels rattle ; scattered limbs, and all 
The various bones, obsequious to the call. 
Self-moved advance ; the neck perhaps to meet 
The distant head ; the distant head the feet. 
Dreadful to view, see, through the dusky sky. 
Fragments of bodies in confusion fly ; 
To distant regions journeying, there to claim 
Deserted members, and complete the frame." 

What shall we say to this ? In the view of sober reason 
is it any thing but a poet's dream? And what is the chaff 
to the wheat? '* He that hath a dream, let him tell a 
dream ; and he that hath my word, let him declare my 
word.'' Such descriptions wrought into pulpit discourses 
can be considered as nothing else than pulpit rhapsodizing, 
by which the cause of truth is any thing but a gainer. But 
this is a view of the subject approaching too near to carica- 
ture to be admitted as the bona fide belief of sensible men, 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 45 

and as such entitled to serious refutation, and therefore we 
do not dwell upon it. 

But waving all that can be justly deemed extravagant in 
the prevailing sentiments on the subject, we still find a 
large residuum of the improbable and the incredible in that 
which is propounded to our reception. Guided by the mere 
letter of Scripture, it is common to hear mention made of 
the body's being raised from the grave at the sound of the last 
trumpet, and of its coming out of the tomb or the sepulchre 
in which it was interred. This, we concede|fc Scripture 
language, and the simple use of the ipsissim^verba of the 
Holy Spirit can never be a ground of censure towards any 
man who uses it with pure motives. Still we are at full 
liberty to inquire into its meaning, and to institute the most 
rigid comparison between the literal averments of holy writ 
and the inevitable deductions of our reason founded upon 
the ascertained results of science; nor is it possible that the 
import of the inspired oracles, when rightly understood, 
should ever be such as to compel us to forego the clear and 
legitimate conclusions which are forced upon us by the 
just exercise of our rational faculties. The sense, however, 
which we are constrained to put upon the letter of the 
sacred record may be different from that which is most na- 
tively obvious, and such as would never have occurred to us 
but from an apparent conflict between the literal interpreta- 
tion and the known facts or irresistible inferences derived 
from other sources — a point upon which we shall have more 
to say in the sequel. In the present instance it is unques- 
tionable, that the words quoted from our Saviour's address 
to the Jews do encounter a very formidable difficulty, arising 
from the indubitable fact, that thousands and millions of hu- 
man bodies ^hat were once deposited in graves are not 
there now, and never will be again. Their tombs are 
cenotaphs, or empty monuments, in every sense of the word. 
Where now are the tenants of hundreds of the cemeteries 
of Egypt, whose mummy-remains have been from age to age 

3*= 



46 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

consumed for fuel, or transferred, in the form of medicine, 
to the jars upon the apothecaries' shelves? They certainly 
are no longer to be found in the rocky repositories in which 
they were piously bestowed by the hands of survivors. 
When our Lord's language, therefore, is applied to cases 
like these, and it is affirmed that these bodies are to be 
raised out of their graves at the last day, how is it to be 
reconciled with the fact now adverted to? Let it not be 
said that this is an infidel objection, prompted by a proud 
preference^ft human reason to the teachings of inspired 
wisdom. Trie question is, Is it a valid objection ? If so, 
it is entitled to regard, by whomsoever proposed. Nothing 
is gained by blinking or blackening the allegation of real 
difficulties in any part of the sacred writings. 

We do not of course urge the objection as bearing at all 
against the fact of a future existence in another state. But 
we are at liberty to demand of any one who affirms at this 
day respecting a body that was buried, say four thousand 
years ago, that it is to come out of its burying-place, 
what he means by the assertion, when in point of fact not a 
particle of it remains there — when it has passed partly into 
other forms of vegetable and animal life, and partly into im- 
ponderable gases? So far as this affirmation builds itself 
upon the express declarations of Jesus, we would ever interro- 
gate its import with the profoundest reverence, but still we 
w^ould interrogate it, nor do we conceive that a due respect 
to the words of inspiration requires us to rest contented 
with ideas that have nothing in them of definite or precise. 
Under this impression we scruple not to reject, as contain- 
ing unfair and injurious imputations, the sentiment of the 
following extract from Witsius, {Dissert, on the Apos. Creed, 
Vol.11, p. 424,) who thus descants upon the philosophical 
objection we are now urging : — ** In fact this objection dis- 
covers a preposterous curiosity, and an immoderate love of 
refinement; which, however, it is not impossible to repress 
by satisfactory arguments. Even although we could find 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 47 

nothing more particular to say in reply, is it fit that we 
should bring forward our reason, so feeble, so diseased, so 
enveloped in thick darkness, and so defiled by numerous 
corruptions, to weigh and measure the wisdom and power 
of God, his faithfulness in his promises, and his admirable 
providence and incredible facility in removing the greatest 
possible difficulties ? Truly, that man cherishes most un- 
worthy thoughts of God, who determines to believe him in 
nothing but what he is able to investigate and comprehend 
in its entire nature and mode, by the force ojJiis own un- 
derstanding. We make this remark, how^ever, not because 
we have no other answer to return to the objection ; but 
because when human reason replies against God, it is useful 
again and again to inculcate, that nothing is more just and 
proper than that, in its inquiries into divine mysteries, it 
should lay aside all murmuring, and allow itself to be sub- 
dued into the obedience of faith." Human reason is un- 
doubtedly required to assume an attitude of the deepest def- 
erence and docility in reference to divine teachings, but she 
can never be required to forego her own attributes in deal- 
ing with an alleged revelation from heaven ; and this 
enjoined subjection to the obedience of faith is often in 
truth little else than a virtual quenching of that candle of 
the Almighty which he has himself lighted up within us. 

But we return to the objection. We say that the letter 
of the inspired record announces a fact apparently at vari- 
ance with other facts which carry with them an authority 
no less imperative to our rational understanding. How can 
a body come out of the grave that is not there ? It is pal- 
pable that the language must be limited, modified, qualified 
in some way, in order to be made accordant with known 
facts. We shall consider the passage more at length in the 
sequel ; but we observe at present, that so far as it is pleaded 
in proof of the resurrection of the same body, or indeed of 
any material body at all, its testimony necessajuly fails in 
effect, so long as the obvious conflict between the letter and 



48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the fact remains unremoved. We are aware it may be 
replied, that no one can positively affirm that all the dust 
has disappeared from the place where it was deposited — that 
some relics of the entombed body may yet remain to form a 
nucleus of the reconstructed fabric. This we believe to be 
a very prevalent opinion in regard to the point in question. 
The dominant impression throughout Christendom is not, 
we think, that the entire body which was laid down at death 
is resumed at the resurrection, but rather that certain 
parts of itj^ore or less, are in some way preserved from ex- 
tinction, and, like a germ in vegetation, are transferred from 
the old to the new structure, between which they constitute 
the indispensable link in the chain of continuous identity. 
But to say nothing of the utter lack of evidence that any 
such transfer takes place — nothing of the intrinsic incom- 
patibility of material and spiritual elements in the same 
fabric— we are unable to perceive upon what grounds a 
diminutive portion of a dissolved and decayed human body 
call be said to constitute that body in its restored state. 
We can imagine an old house taken down and a few of its 
timbers or shingles to enter into the materials of a new one ; 
but would this be termed a rebuilding of the former edifice? 
So in regard to the former and latter body. The solution 
labors under an insuperable difficulty from not defining how 
much of the one is necessary for rendering it a renewal or 
revival of the other. We are utterly nonplussed to master 
the principle on which the insertion of a few particles of the 
former body into the latter shall properly denominate it the 
resurrection of that body. 

The remarks now made are made on the admission that 
there may, in some cases, be a residuum, small though it be, 
of the corporeal mass remaining in the grave after the lapse 
of hundreds or thousands of years. The probability, for the 
most part, we doubt not, would be against this as a matter of 
fact ; but in order to present the difficulty in its strongest 
light, we will suppose a case about which there can be no 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 49 

doubt. The rites of sepulture — the modes of disposing the 
dead — have always been different among different nations ; 
and of the whole number of the race of men who have hith- 
erto lived and died, it is very doubtful whether the majority 
of them have been buried, in the ordinary sense of the term. 
However this may be, we know that cremation, or burning, 
has ever been and still is practised among several eastern 
nations. Now in order to present the difficulty in the case 
before us in its full strength, we will suppose that in a suffi- 
cient lapse of time the bodies of five hundred Hindoo w^idows 
are consumed on the funeral piles of their husbands on some 
lofty mountain peak. In the process of combustion it is evi- 
dent that by the laws of chemistry a considerable portion of 
the solids and fluids of the system pass into invisible gases, 
which are lost in the immensity of the atmosphere, while the 
only perceptible residuum from each body is a little handful 
of ashes, which instead of being gathered up and enclosed in 
cinerary urns, we will suppose to be scattered by the winds 
to the four quarters of heaven. 

Now it will doubtless be said that these bodies, like all 
others, are to be raised again at the last day. But what is 
meant by this language? How — in what sense — are these 
bodies to be raised ? The question is not whether these 
persons are to live again. That is beyond question. But 
what is to be understood by these bodies being said to 
be raised at the final consummation ? Raised out of graves 
they certainly will not be, for they v^^ere never in graves ; 
and as to any germ that may possibly be conceived of in 
respect to inhumed bodies, where is it here ? The elements 
of these bodies, after having been submitted to the action of 
fire, are scattered through the universe, and we cannot con- 
ceive of any mode by which they can be said to be raised 
up, except by the re-gathering and re-construction of the 
dispersed atoms — and to this Omnipotence is undoubtedly 
competent. But does this relieve the difficulty ? Does this 
bring us to the true scriptural view of the resurrection 1 



50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Is it the genuine doctrine of the resurrection, that the iden- 
tical particles of the former body are to be re-assembled and 
formed into the renovated fabric? Will not this constitute 
a body of flesh and blood, which we are expressly assured 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God ? 

Again then we ask. What is meant by the resurrection 
of the body, and what the relation which the body that dies 
bears to the body that is raised 1 We cannot convict our- 
selves of irreverence in proposing these questions. They are 
forced upon us by the very laws of that reason with which 
the Creator has endowed us, and with which the dicta of 
revelation, when rightly understood, must, by inevitable ne- 
cessity, accord. If the announcements of that holy volume 
can only be received by the surrender of our intelligence, 
and by a violent suppression of the voice which it utters, 
how is it ever to command the assent of any but minds of 
the lowest order ? 

But we shall perhaps be referred to the analogies of the 
vegetable world, and be reminded of Paul's striking illustra- 
tion drawn from the sown seed and the up-springing plant, 
in which we are to recognize the most fitting emblem of 
the resurrection. We readily admit the general force of the 
analogy : but we shall perceive, if we mistake not, on a close 
examination, that the phenomena of the vegetable world il- 
lustrate the subject /tz a different way from what is generally 
imagined, and favor entirely a different construction. It is 
w^ell known that throughout the whole kingdom of vegeta- 
tion the new plant arises from some in wrapped and latent 
germ or stamen, to which the vital prmciple of the plant 
adheres, and under the plastic and organific power of which 
the new plant is developed. If the vital germ of a plant 
dies, we look in vain for its revival in any form. But when 
the germ lives, and the conditions are favorable, we confi- 
dently anticipate its re-appearance in due season upon the 
surface of the earth, and its advancement through the sev- 
eral stages of its growth to full maturity, when it will be in 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 5 I 

the main a fac-simile of its parent. But in all this process 
we can trace the uninterrupted continuance oi life. There 
is no break in the chain of vital operation, and consequently 
we are not embarrassed at all on the score of the relation 
which the new plant bears to the old. Although it under- 
goes a great change of form, and the numerical particles are 
in a state of constant transition, yet so long as we can keep 
our eye on the unbroken thread of life, we have no hesitation 
in saying that there is a consistent sense in which it is the 
same plant. But suppose that a kernel of corn were planted 
to-day in the valley of the Mississippi, where it undergoes 
the usual process of decomposition, and a century hence, 
without any removal of the dust, a stalk of corn should 
spring up on the plains of Hindostan, and we should be told 
that that was the product of the seed dropped in the soil of 
the Western continent, could we comprehend the possibility 
of the fact? Could we perceive the relation of the two? 
Now this presents very fairly the difficulty in regard to the 
resurrection of the body. The difficulty arises from the 
break in the continuity of the vital operations. While 
the body is alive, the vital functions are indissolubly con- 
nected with the presence and functions of the soul. When 
death takes place the principle to which the animation of 
the body was owing departs, and leaves the body a mere 
mass of inert iifeless matter, subject, like all other matter, 
to the action of chemical agencies, by which it is gradually 
resolved into its primitive elements. Where then do we, or 
can we, detect any thing like a germ or staminal principle, 
by the action of which a new body can ever be developed 
out of the remains of the former ? It is precisely as in the 
case of a plant, the germ of which has been decomposed 
and destroyed. Does not that plant, as a matter of course, 
lose its reproductive power? Throw a seed into the fire, 
and what prospect of its germination ? Submit a human 
body to the action of the flames, and then say whether the 
effect upon the vital principle or the vital portion, whatever 



52 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

it may be, is not the same as in the case of the plant. Do 
not the same natural causes which forbid the re-quickening 
of the one forbid that of the other also ? This we say on 
the hypothesis — and it is nothing more — that there is any 
thing in the human body, apart from the soul, answering to 
the vital germ of the plant. But in truth the vital principle 
of the body is indissolubly connected — we do not say iden- 
tical — with the soul. If the body is again to be animated, 
it must be by the re-infusion of the soul, a position in view 
of which two objections at once array themselves in inter- 
rogative form before the mind; — (1.) How is the body to 
be forthcoming at the appointed time, when it has become 
blended with an infinity of other organizations, and when 
different human bodies have an equal claim to the particles 
composing it? (2.) Supposing that Omnipotence should 
adjust this difficulty, will the re-construction of the original 
materials of the fleshly body form the spiritual body which 
we conceive to be that of the resurrection ? And if a change 
take place virtually equivalent to a new creation, how can 
this be termed the resurrection of the same body ? On any 
ground, therefore, we perceive the immense difficulty of es- 
tablishing a definite or conceivable relation between the 
body that dies and the body that is raised. 

Let us now turn for a moment from the vegetable to the 
animal kingdom, and note the organisms in that world of 
wonders. The result we shall find to be the same. We see 
the grovelling and unsightly caterpillar or silkworm cast off 
its gross exuviae, and forth issues, after certain ordained 
transformations, the brisk and beautiful winged insect, soar- 
ing upwards in an element entirely new, and with a body 
curiously adapted to the sphere into which its existence is 
transferred. Though it has not the same body, yet we have 
no hesitation in saying that it is the same creature which we 
beheld creeping in peristaltic movement along the ground. 
And we say it is the same, because we perceive here also, 
the unbroken continuity of the vital principle, the true seat 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 53 

and subject of animal identity. We have no difficulty in 
recognizing the relation between the primitive and the 
ultimate organism. The one is visibly developed out 
of the other w^ithout one moment's cessation of the 
functions of life. But let us suppose, for a moment, that 
the caterpillar should die and moulder to dust before this 
transformation, according to the laws of nature, had taken 
place ; should we look for the emergence, at any future time, 
of the butterfly from the relics of the grub? Or, if we 
allow ourselves to imagine that one hundred or five hundred 
years after the worm had passed away, an insect should 
appear flapping its gilded wings over the very spot where the 
preceding structure was decomposed, and we should be told 
that the butterfly was the same being, transformed, with 
the caterpillar that had perished there ages before, could we 
by any possibility grasp the ideas involved in the affirma- 
tion? All the relation that we could discern between the 
one and the other w^ould be that o{ priority and posteriority 
of time. 

Now this, we contend, is precisely the difficulty that 
weighs upon the common theory of the resurrection of the 
body. According to this theory there is just that break — 
that huge interruption — in the continuous agency of the vital 
principle which makes it so impossible to discover or define 
the relation between the buried and the beatified body. 
The latent link which connects the two entirely escapes 
detection, and yet it is upon the presence of this link alone 
that we can predicate identity of the two structures. Thou- 
sands and millions of bodies perished in the universal deluge. 
Some of these were probably devoured by the monsters of 
the deep, and entered into combination with their bodies. 
Others, after the waters had retired and left them exposed 
on the surface of the earth, were slowly resolved back again 
into their primordial elements, and have since passed through 
countless mutations. The question is, whether the true 
doctrine of the resurrection requires us to believe that these 



54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

dispersed materials are to be re-collected again, and to enter 
into the composition of spiritual bodies. If that is the 
case with the antediluvian dust, it doubtless is with all other, 
and how this is to be effected without taking to pieces and 
unravelling, as it were, the whole framework of Nature, 
surpasses conception. And if this is to be the case, when 1 
Is it to be at the period denominated the last day, when 
it is for the most part held that the conflagration of the 
heavens and the earth is to take place? If such be unequi- 
vocally the divine testimony, we must of course receive it. 
But it would surely seem to human view, a priori, a strange 
and incomprehensible procedure, that the re-gathering of 
these scattered particles, the re-building of these dilapidated 
human temples, should be going on in the midst of this 
scene of *^ telluric combustion !" 

It is obvious beyond question that the popular theory 
reduces us to great extremities of solution. Indeed we see 
not but that the difficulties which cluster about it are abso- 
lutely insuperable ; and if Faith has only this view of the 
resurrection to present to Philosophy, we cannot perceive 
any ground for wonder that Philosophy should be slow to 
receive it; and yet Philosophy and Faith, like Righteous- 
ness and Peace, in the economy of God, are and must be 
wedded together. True Philosophy — and we are here speak- 
ino" of no other — can never — never — be in conflict w^ith 

o 

true faith. 

There is doubtless a great variety of shades in the prev- 
alent belief on this subject; yet we cannot, we think, be 
mistaken in regarding it as the general sentiment, that not- 
withstanding there is a very long and indefinite period to 
elapse between death and the resurrection, yet that the future 
body, when re-produced by the power of Omnipotence, 
is to be in some way connected with and raised out of 
the existing remains of the corporeal fabric which the soul 
inhabited during its earthly sojourn. It is probable indeed 
that the views entertained of the nature of this relation are 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 55 

somewhat loose and vague in most minds, and that they rest 
in resolving it into the working of an Almighty power ; yet 
that it will be somehow in the actual resuscitation, in whole 
or in part, of the dead bodies consigned to the earth that 
this event will be accomplished, is undoubtedly very gene- 
rally held. 

To this view of the received doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion we have ventured to suggest the objection drawn from 
the established fact, that our bodies in this world are under- 
going a constant change, from the escape and replacement 
of the particles of which they are composed, and conse- 
quently that as we have, in the course of our lives, several 
bodies, it does not convey a definite or intelligible idea to 
say that the bedy will be raised at the last day. It leaves 
us under the irresistible prompting to inquire, what body? 
It is a mode of expression very similar to that which should 
affirm of some kind of coat which a man has worn for twenty 
years, that at the end of that time it should be renewed. In 
ordinary circumstances a person in that period wears and 
wears out a great many coats. To say, therefore, that at 
the end of twenty years a man's coat shall be renewed, leaves 
the mind utterly at a loss to know what particular coat is 
meant. The difficulty is the same in regard to the future 
renovation of the body. What body is intended ? The reply 
dictated by the more prevailing opinion probably is, that it 
is the last body in the series. This is not an unnatural 
impression on the basis of the common theory, that the body 
to be raised is in some way directly related to the body 
which was laid in the dust. This is certainly the body 
which dies; and if a new body were to be constructed out 
of the remains of the old one, it would strike us as most 
reasonable that it should be out of that which '' we saw 
quietly inurned." As the previous bodies have all evapo- 
rated and disappeared, the mind doubtless finds it extremely 
difficult to trace the connexion between these transmuted, 
volatilized and vanished structures, and the future glorious 



56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

corporeity. But let us suppose for a moment — and the sup- 
position is perfectly legitimate — that this last body has just as 
much disappeared and become mingled with the universe as 
any of its predecessors : what is gained, we would ask, in 
the way of meeting the difficulty, by connecting the future 
raised body with the last of the series any more than with 
any of the former ones? In the space of some thousands 
of years they have all of them equally disappeared, and for 
aught that we can see, one of them has just as much rela- 
tion to the future resurrection body as another — and just as 
little. Indeed we may ask if it is possible for any man, in 
the exercise of his calm reflection, even by the utmost stretch 
of his faculties, to conceive the possibility that a risen saint 
should be able to recognize the splendid, sublimated, celes- 
tial fabric in which he soars upwards to the eternal man- 
sions, as specifically related to that worn, wasted, withered, 
decrepit, or possibly marred, mutilated, and deformed body 
from which his soul took its exit? For ourselves, we are 
unable to discover any adequate grounds for this opinion, or 
to realize that the objection we are urging, from the succes- 
sive changes of the human body, is not a valid objection. 
We are certainly at liberty to demand v/hat particular body 
is to be raised. If any one is specified, then we ask, why that 
rather than any other? If it be replied that the aggregate 
of the whole is to be raised, then we naturally ask how those 
portions of the huge fabric are to be disposed of which have 
equally belonged to other bodies ? 

Our grand objection then to the common theory of the 
resurrection, is founded upon the lack of a conceiva- 
ble relation between the former and the latter body. 
This relation we do not hesitate to affirm to be beyond the 
grasp of the human intellect, and a resort to Omnipotence 
leaves the difficulty, in our view, just where it was before. 
While we would not dare to limit the Holy One of Israel, or 
to deny that any thing is possible to him which is possible 
in itself, yet, as we apprehend the subject before us, the ideas 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. O/ 

involved in the proposition of the resurrection of the same 
body are incompatible per se. The real question is, how 
Omnipotence itself can establish the relation of which we 
are in quest — how, not as to the mamier, but as to the 
fact ? 

We are aware it is easily replied that it is no more 
difficult to conceive of the future body being built up out of 
the dispersed particles of the old one, than it is to conceive 
of the creation of the body in the first instance. But this 
reply loses sight of one important consideration which 
destroys the parallelism of the two cases. In the original 
creation there is the production of something by the simple 
fiat of Omnipotence that has no relation to any thing else go- 
ing before. But in the case of the resurrection there is the 
production of something out of a pre-existing substance, 
and consequently involving a relation of the former and the 
latter fabric to each other, which is of such a nature as 
utterly to confound and overwhelm our faculties, even when 
Omnipotence is called in to solve the problem. We may 
illustrate the difficulty that cleaves to the hypothesis by a 
fresh supposition. We can easily imagine that beneath the 
surface of a field of battle a human body, the body of a 
horse, and the wheel of a war-chariot may have been 
buried together. In process of time all these substances 
moulder away and become commingled in one indiscrimi- 
nate mass of dust. The dust is there; but still it is but 
dust, and no power of human thought can conceive of one 
part of the earthy material being essentially different from 
the rest. No one can imagine any superior adaptedness in 
one part more than in any other for the construction of a 
glorified body. It is certainly impossible to conceive that 
any attributes should pertain to one portion of the mass, 
which should enable the soul to recognize itself as more at 
home in a body formed of that, than in one formed of any 
other. 

Yet, if the popular view of the subject be correct, we 



58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

are required to believe that there is a discrimination to be 
made between these particles, now become homogeneous, 
and that a latent virtue in some which does not pertain to 
the others, is to appropriate them to the formation of a body 
'* fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body." Can we 
conceive it ? If it be said in reply, that the true question 
is, not whether we can conceive it, but whether inspiration 
has affirmed it, our rejoinder to this will be found in the 
sequel, where we consider the scriptural argument. 



CHAPTER II. 
Distinction of Personal and Bodily Identity. 

The position that the scriptural doctrine of the resur- 
rection necessitates the belief of the resurrection of the 
same body, enforces upon us the consideration of the subject 
of identity. We are at once arrested by the inquiry, whe- 
ther the identity of the person implies the identity of the 
body. In strictness of speech a body which is undergoing 
a constant change in its constituent particles cannot be said 
to be the same in any two successive moments of its dura- 
tion. This of course applies to the human body, the com- 
ponent atoms of which are in a state of ceaseless fluctuation. 
A precise use of language will not warrant the assertion, that 
our bodies are the same this hour that they were the last. 
The paring of a nail, the clipping of a hair, leaves the body 
a different body from what it was before this subduction 
from its integrity took place. It is true indeed that for all 
the purposes of ordinary and popular discourse it is per- 
haps an unexceptionable mode of diction to say, that we 
have in mature life the same bodies that we had in child- 
hood. But when we subject the phraseology to a rigid test, 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 59 

it is obvious that it cannot be true. That cannot be the 
same through a given lapse of time which is constantly 
changing its constituent parts during that time. 

How then is it possible to affirm, with philosophical ac- 
curacy, that I have the same body to-day that I had twenty 
years ago ? And it would certainly be hard to show that that 
which is philosophically false is theologically true. The 
point before us is one on which we are at liberty to insist 
upon the most punctilious exactness of definition. We are 
well aware that current modes of speech do not very nicely 
discriminate on this head, nor is it necessary. A man 
takes his stand by the falls of Niagara, and watches for 
hours the sublime spectacle of the cataract. He beholds 
the same element — he sees it in the same circumstances — 
he is surrounded by the same localities — he hears the same 
roar — it makes upon him the same impression ; and he 
says, in common parlance, that he sees the same object. 
Yet nothing is plainer than that the particles of the fluid 
are every instant changing, and consequently that which he 
sees at one glance of his eye is not the same w^ith that 
which he sees at the next. He predicates sameness of the 
object simply upon the ground of the sameness of the cir- 
cumstances, relations, and effects. So in regard to a hu- 
man body. I meet a well known acquaintance to-day whom 
I last saw a year or ten years ago. His form, air, manner, 
and voice are the same, and as his presence produces, upon 
me the same effect, I say, without particularly scanning the 
propriety of the language, that I behold the same body. 
But on a moment's reflection, my reason corrects the report 
of my senses, and I am convinced that it cannot be the same 
body, if it is subject to the laws of all other human bodies. 
I behold the same person, but not the same body. 

The remarks of Bishop Butler [Anal. Dissert. I.) on the 
identity of plants, are signally apposite in this connexion, 
especially as they indirectly develop the true grounds of the 
distinction between bodily and personal identity. "The 



60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

inquiry, what makes vegetables the same, in the common 
acceptation of the word, does not appear to have any rela- 
tion to this of personal identity; because the word same^ 
when applied to them and to persons, is not only applied to 
different subjects, but it is also used in different senses. 
For when a man swears to the same tree, as having stood 
fifty years in the same place, he means only the same as to 
all the purposes of property and uses of common life, and 
not that the tree has been all that time the same in the 
strict philosophical sense of the word. For he does not 
know whether any one particle of the present tree be the 
same with any one particle of the tree which stood in the 
same place fifty years ago. And if they have not one com- 
mon particle of matter, they cannot be the same tree, in the 
proper philosophical sense of the word same; it being evi- 
dently a contradiction in terms to say they are, when no 
part of their substance, and no one of their properties, is the 
same — no part of their substance, by the supposition ; and 
no one of their properties, because it is allowed that the 
same property cannot be transferred from one substance to 
another. And therefore when we say the identity or same- 
ness of a plant consists in a continuation of thesame life, 
communicated under the same organization to a number of 
particles of matter, whether the same or not, the word same, 
when applied to life and organization, cannot possibly be 
understood to signify what it signifies in this very sentence, 
when applied to matter. In a loose and popular sense, 
then, the life, and the organization, and the plant, are justly 
said to be the same, notwithstanding the perpetual change 
of the parts. But in a strict and philosophical manner of 
speech, no man, no being, no mode of being, nor any thing, 
can be the same with that with which it hath indeed nothing 
the same. Now sameness is used in this latter sense ap- 
plied to persons. The identity of these, therefore, cannot 
subsist with diversity of substance." 

How much sounder is the reasoning which we here en- 



THE RATIONAL AHGUMfil^T 61 



counter than that of Mr. Drew on the sanie subject (Es- 
say on the Ident. and Resurrect, of the Hum, Bod., p. 139, 
et inf ). '^ We well know, in case of amputation, that 
much of the substance of the body may be taken away, 
without in the least affecting the identity of that body from 
which that substance was taken. For while amputation 
will, and inevitably must, destroy the identity of the nume- 
rical parts, the identity of the body will remain uninjured 
and entire, as much so, as though no such amputation had 
taken place." — " When the body of a corpulent man has 
been reduced to a mere skeleton by a fever, we may ask — 
Is that body the same that it was before ? (Answer, no.) 
In point of identity it is most undoubtedly the same, but in 
point of real numerical particles it is undoubtedly much 
chano-ed, and is becom.e considerably different from what it 
was before. And as the loss of particles reduced his body 
to that skeleton at which I have just hinted, so when this per- 
son shall be recovered from his reduced state, and restored to 
his former corpulency, it must be by the acquisition of new 
particles which are now incorporated in the system, in the 
room of those which the fever had wasted and exhaled. He 
must still possess the same body in point of identity, under 
all the variation of health and sickness; though perhaps not 
less than one-third part of the particles which now compose 
his system is entirely new." In all this we detect the fal- 
lacy of confoundincr the identity of the man with the iden- 
tity of the body. So again in what follows : — '' We see also 
the surprising changes which an infant undergoes from an 
embryo in the womb to a maturity of years and to hoary 
acre ; through all the numberless variations to which, in 
every stage of life, the body has been exposed. And yet, 
through all those changes which either sickness or health 
produces ; which respiration, or effluvia, or perspiration, can 
either separately or conjointly occasion, or which the em- 
bryo, from infancy to maturity can undergo, the identity is 

still the same." 

4 



62 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 

If this be so, then we do not scruple to say, that it is 
vain to attempt to affix meaning to language. But the 
errant conclusions of this writer flow by legitimate sequence 
from his fundamental hypothesis, which is a mere gratuitous 
assumption, *^ that there must be somewhere lodged within 
^e body, some portion of immovable matter, from which 
us general identity is denominated, in all the variations 
through which it passes, in the devious mutations of human 
life." Holding this view it is no wonder that his treatise 
discovers such a leaning to the Jewish figment of the immor- 
tal bone in the extremity of the os coccygis. 

But this river of ratiocination soon loses itself in the 
sands when followed down into the region of clear physiologi- 
cal and psychological induction. Here we learn that the 
identity of the body is one thing, and the identity of the 
person another. Without a clear perception of this distinc- 
tion the true doctrine of the resurrection will fail to be 
grasped. When once apprehended, we are immediately 
freed from all embarrassment on the score of the unceas- 
ing succession of particles. Affixing the seat of identity 
to the seat of personality, we can see the body wasting by 
exhalations and repairing itself by new accretions, and still 
perceive the central substratum of our being remaining 
unmoved, indestructible, and eternal, in the midst of all 
cycles of change. Something assuredly there is, which 
lives abiding and untouched in the midst of, and in spite 
of, the incessant flux of our corporeal existence. In that 
something our personality inheres, and to it our true identity 
cleaves. Of the body we cannot predicate identity at all in 
any two successive moments of its being ; much less after 
centurial intervals and unknown transmutations. It is a mere 
centre of centripetal and centrifugal particles continually 
arriving and departing, without any permanent stay. What 
can any man make of the unmodified averment that the same 
body is to rise at some indefinitely future day ? If a man 
rises in the morning with a different body from that with 



THE RATIONAL AHGUMExNT. 63 

which he lay down— though he still remains the same per- 
son — with what propriety can he be said to rise from his 
grave with the same body with which he entered it? 

Personality implies intelligence and self-consciousness. 
A beast is an individual, but not ^person. The mere ani- 
mal feels itself, but is not conscious of itself The seat of 
personality is the centre of all our bodily and mental activi- 
ties. The idea of the bodily structure does indeed enter into 
the general conception of the person, but it is related to it 
just as our clothes are related to our bodies — as a mere ad- 
ventitious appendage. It is not essential to the reality of 
the person, as that which constitutes a man's self survives 
the body ; it is not essential to the identity of the person, as 
that remains unchanged amid all the changes of the body.* 
The personality of a human being is centred in that which 
thinks, and reasons, and wills; which loves, and fears, and 
hopes; which suffers, enjoys, and feels. The vital principle, 
whatever that be, is intimately, and probably indissolubly, 
connected with the intellectual and moral principle, but 
no philosophy has yet shown that it is identical with it. 

The ^Jl7Ji and the rovg, the anima and the mens, the 
animal spirit and the mind, coexist in the compound unity 
of our being, and though the essential and orltological attri- 



* '* Perhaps you will say, it is not the same person, if it is not in a great 
measure the same hodij. I say, if the soul had not the least of the dead 
body, it would be the same person. St. Paul said he was ' rapt into the 
third heaven,' and yet whether in the body or out of the body, could not 
tell : and yet was he not the very person of Paul still? Christ says to 
the thief, ' This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' The body of 
the thief was upon the cross ; it did not go into Paradise. Whom, there- 
fore, did Christ take into Paradise ? — another person, or the same 1 Or 
was Christ another person or the same, during the three days his body 
was in the grave ? All the saints, martyrs, prophets, and patriarchs, and 
all that have departed, whether good or bad, before the resumption of 
their bodies (?) are the same persons, and have their distinct fates 
allotted them." — Burnefs State of the Dead, p. 233. 



64 THE toOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

butes of each elude our keenest research, yet the slightest 
reflection cannot hesitate to make the grounds of our entity 
to be the seat of our permanent identity. The essence of 
this our faculties are not, perhaps, competent to reach ; but 
be it what it may, it is doubtless in its own nature inde- 
structible and immortal, and that to which we must look as 
the true basis of the doctrine of the resurrection. The 
erroneous estimate which, as we conceive, has been formed 
of this doctrine, has arisen from confounding some fancied 
identity of the body with that of the person. Mr. Locke has, 
indeed, developed the distinction with pre-eminent ability, 
but the assumed exigencies of theology have frowned upon 
its recognition, and it still finds a slow and reluctant admis- 
sion. But the eventual triumph of truth cannot fail to 
sweep away the last barrier that opposes its access to the 
inmost convictions of the human mind.* 



* " The present seems a fit opportunity for introducing two or three 
observations on the subject of personal identity. It has been said, and is 
admitted, that the body is constantly changing, undergoing decay and 
renovation, yet the individual is conscious of being the same person, 
because some particles of the original body remain. Now, this is an 
error ; for, first, we have no reason to believe that any molecule of matter 
now existing in our bodies will not have been effectually changed some 
years since, and perhaps oftentimes ; for no part is exempted from the 
general law, and therefore the consciousness of personal identity cannot 
depend upon the material fact of some part remaining unchanged, as a 
lingering nucleus on which to ground a reasoning in proof of identity. 

" The truth admits of a much easier and more rational explanation, 
since the consciousness of personal identity flows from that of continued 
existence. The whole may be changed ; not a single particle of the 
original body may remain, yet the change has proceeded so gradually that 
the greater number of old particles remain while the new ones are pre- 
pared ; and therefore, at any one given moment, there are in the body a 
much greater number of old than new particles ; and the consciousness of 
personal identity has been transferred from one set of particles to another 
without any perceptible change. The decay and renovation have gone on 
by an unperceived process, and it has been only as a matter of science and 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 65 

It is well known to have been ascertained by chemistry 
that the body is made up of no less than nine different sub- 
stances — gases, earths, metals, and salts.* These substan- 



reasoning that we have known any thing of this change ; the conscious- 
ness of personal identity cannot, therefore, rest on any material condi- 
tion. In fact this consciousness does not depend on the body, hut on the 
mind; it has nothing to do with the material particles, hut rests for its 
existence upon the immaterial spirit^ and upon the sense of its continued 
existence. Now, this is, after ail, to be referred to a species of memory — 
a recollection of former self as coincident with present self'' — Newn' 
ham on Recip. Infl. of Bod. and Mind, p. 124, 5. 

* Magendie makes the number of these elements to be eleven, and 
still regards it as doubtful whether even this be strictly correct. We may 
probably consider the truth as lying between these extremes. The fol- 
lowing extract from the same writer may be pertinently introduced in 
this connexion : — " Whatever may be the number and diversity of the 
phenomena presented by men during life, they may be reduced at last to 
these two principal ones, viz., nutrition and vital action.'' — The life of 
man, and that of other organized bodies, is preserved by the habitual 
assimilation of a certain quantity of matter, called aliment. If they are 
deprived of this for a given period, it will be necessarily followed by a 
cessation of life. On the other hand, daily observation shows that the 
organs of man, and other living beings, are constantly losing a certain 
portion of the matter of which they are composed. A necessity, there- 
fore, for repairing the loss which is thus constantly sustained, is the rea- 
son why the habitual use of aliments is required. From these data, and 
from some other circumstances which we shall rnention by and by, it has 
been justly concluded that living bodies are not composed, identically, of 
the same matter at every period of their existence, but that they undergo 
a total renovation. The ancients. imagined that this was accomplished 
in the space of seven years. But, without admitting this conjecture to 
its full extent, it is extremely probable that all parts of the body, during 
life, are undergoing a change, which has the double effect of expelling 
those molecules which have served their appointed time in the compo- 
sition of the organs, and of replacing them by new molecules. It is this 
which constitutes nutrition. This process does not fall, indeed, under the 
cognizance of our senses ; but the effects are so palpable, that it would 
be the height of skepticism to doubt it. In the present state of physiology, 
this operation cannot be attributed to chemical affinity, that power which 
controls the action of minute particles of matter upon each other in dead 



66 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

ces, in the living body, are held in combination by some 
agency which we call life, and which is continually exerting 
an antagonistic force against the tendencies to dissolution. 
The component particles of these substances are undergoing 
incessant changes under the ceaseless action of that myste- 
rious power which dismisses some and attracts others. This 
power maintains a perpetual sway, unchanged itself amidst 
all the changes which it works, until death ensues, when the 
body becomes a corpse, and the elements fall asunder. The 
life then retires, and with the life goes forth the intelligence, 
which conjointly constitute the essence of the man. But 
this surely is not the extinction of his being. Though 
invisible, he still lives ; though no longer physical, he is 
sUW psychical; nor can it be shown that the phrase psychical 
body, is not a fitting expression for that mode of existence 
upon which he enters at death. 

We are well aware that we are here treading upon the 
outermost limits of our knowledge ; but as the fact is incon- 
testable, that a vital principle, pervading the whole frame, 
coexists with the intellectual principle in the body, is not 
the presumption perfectly legitimate that they coexist also 
out of the body ? In other words, that we go into the spir- 
itual world with a psychical body ? This, in strictness of 
speech, is perhaps a more appropriate epithet by which to 
denominate the body of the resurrection than spiritual, 
for the reason that it is not entirely clear that this latter 
term is used in the Scriptures in a metaphysical sense. The 
original term, nvev^ajizoq, is derived from nv^v^m, spirit, and 
it cannot be doubted that the dominant usage of this word by 
the sacred writers is not in opposition to material, but to 
carnal, as when it is said, ** The spirit is willing, but the 
flesh is weak.'' Still it is evident that these senses, which 
we may call the metaphysical and the moral, do border so 

bodies, nor, indeed, do we know of any satisfactory explanation of it." — 
Magendie's Elernents of Human Physiology, p. 26. 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 67 

closely upon, as occasionally to run into, each other ; and 
where angels and demons are termed nvev^aia^ spirits, the 
ground of the appellation is doubtless the immaterial nature 
which they possess. For this reason we have frequently 
employed the phrase '' spiritual body" in these pages in 
the metaphysical sense — a sense in w^hich it would apply to 
the future bodies of the wicked, as well as of the righteous. 
At the same time we cannot but deem the term psychical, 
derived from il>vx)], soul, life, the seat of sensatio7i, as con- 
veying a more strictly accurate idea in this connexion than 
the other, although aware that this also is occasionally used 
in a moral sense.* We here repeat the remark which we 
have substantially made before, that we cannot admit that 
our inability to define with scientific exactness the intrinsic 
nature of the substance which, on the authority of Scripture, 
we denominate spiritual, vacates the general force of our 
reasonings on the subject. If our conclusions are denied 
on this score, w^hat are those which are affirmed ? 



CHAl'TER III. 
The True Body of the Resurrection, as inferred by Reason. 

We trust it may not be forgotten that we are prosecuting 
exclusively the rational argument in respect to the resurrec- 
tion. The conclusions derived from the Scriptural view of 
the subject will be matter of subsequent consideration. At 
present we take philosophy for our guide, just as the geol- 

* Some writers have adopted, by way of distinction, on this subject, 
tUe term sarJcosomatous and pneumasomatous, which will at once dis- 
close their meaning to scholars as implying the flesh-body and the spirit- 
body, and to which there is no objection but their strangeness to English 
cars. 



68 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

ogist takes the earth for his theme, and from its own phe- 
nomena endeavors to ascertain its past and future history. 
There is doubtless a science pertaining to each— a science 
yielding truths in which the reason, by the very Jaws of its 
actings, must rest with absolute assurance. These results 
of the reason, when rightly established, must agree with 
the sense of revelation, w^hen rightly understood. As both 
reason and revelation acknowledge the same Divine Author, 
it is impossible that there should be any conflict in their 
genuine teachings. In regard to the point in question, we 
have shown, if we mistake not, that a sound and strict 
philosophy does encounter difficulties in the resurrection of 
the same body which may be pronounced insuperable, while 
it perceives none in the resurrection of the same person. 
The nature of these difficulties we may develope a little 
more at length, and under somewhat of a new aspect, with 
a view to come somewhat nearer to a conception of the true 
theory of the future life.* 

The succession of particles in the human body may be 
compared to the successive members of a corporate society 

* " In the mean time I crave leave to ask whether there be any prop- 
ositions your lordship can be certain of that are not divinely revealed ? 
And here I will presume that your lordship is jiot so skeptical but that 
you can allow certainty attainable in many things by your natural facul- 
ties. Give me leave, then, to ask your lordship whether, when there be 
propositions of whose truth you have certain knowledge, you can receive 
any proposition for divine revelation which contradicts that certainty ? 
If you cannot, as I presume your lordship will say you cannot, I make 
bold to return your lordship's questions put to me, in your own words : 
* Let us now suppose that you are to judge of a proposition delivered as 
a matter of faith, where you have certainty by reason, can you, my lord, 
assent to this as a matter of faith, when you are already certain of the 
contrary 1 Kow is this possible ? Can you believe that to be true which 
you are certain is not true 1 How can you believe against certainty V 
Certainty is certainty, and he that is certain is certain, and cannot assent 
to that as true which he is certain is not true." — Locke's EepJy to Bp. of 
Worcester, p. 211, 18. 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 69 

formed under a charter. Let us take, for example, the Eng- 
lish East India Company. Let us suppose that this com- 
pany, after being in existence for a number of years, should 
at length, and long before the term of the charter expires, 
become virtually extinct, by the death of all but one or two 
of its members, who become remiss in acting any longer in 
their corporate capacity. We will imagine again that, after 
the lapse of a considerable interval, it is proposed to resus- 
citate the company. What are the leading ideas involved 
in the supposition ? Would it be at all inferred that the 
former members were to be restored to life and organized 
anew? Does the renovated life of the company imply the 
reviviscence of the individual members who have previously 
formed it ? The charter, it will be perceived, is the true 
constituting or uniting principle of the society, and so long 
as the charter remains unimpaired, with its objects, provi- 
sions, and conditions, so long the real essential life of the 
corporate company remains also unimpaired. The vitality, 
so to speak, of the society is in the charter, and there its 
idenity is seated. So long as the charter remains the same, 
the society remains the same, and this sameness is entirely 
independent of the samenesa of the members associated un- 
der it. So far, then, as we can perceive, the revival of the 
corporate society is not the revival, in any sense, of the 
original members, but merely the revival of the inherent 
formative or organific power of the charter. The charter 
is the living nucleus — the germ — the ground-element — to 
which the new social fabric owes its existence. This lives 
unchanged in the midst of all the changes which come over 
the incorporated members, which '' never cease to perish." 

Now it is obvious, in the application of this to the subject 
before us, that if we could find in the human being some- 
thing analogous to the charter in the company — something 
which continues to live in spite of the constant process of 
decay and dissolution — something of which we could predi- 
cate an immovable identity in the midst of perpetual tran- 

4* 



70 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

sition — should we not feel that we had obtained a clew to 
the true resurrection-body ? We might indeed be conscious 
that it was giving language somewhat more than its usual 
latitude to apply the term body to this subtle entity, whatever 
it was, but would it not be that which we should be sure 
was to be so denominated, if the term were used at all in 
this connexion? This principle, it is evident, while it con- 
stitutes the counterpart to the charter supposed, must be 
something wholly apart from and independent of the ma- 
terial particles which compose the present fabric of the 
body — something which has no permanent or necessary re- 
lation to that body — something which precludes the idea of 
the re-collection or re-construction of the dispersed mate- 
rials of the former corporeity. Such, we cannot help be- 
lieving, is the true view of the subject. The resurrection- 
body is that part of our present being to which the essential 
life of the man pertains. We may not be able to see it, to 
handle it, to analyze it, or to describe it. But we know 
that it exists, because we know that we ourselves exist. It 
constitutes the inner essential vitality of our present bodies, 
and it lives again in another state because it never dies. It 
is immortal in its own nature, and it is called a body — a 
spiritual body — because the poverty of human language, or 
perhaps the weakness of the human mind, forbids the adop- 
tion of any more fitting term by which to express it. It is, 
however, a body which has nothing to do with the gross ma- 
terial particles which enter into the composition of our present 
earthly tenements. Still we re-affirm our former position, 
that the truth of our conclusion on this head dees not de- 
pend upon our ability to define the internal nature or consti- 
tution of this substratum of our being. We know that it 
is, whatever be its essence, and we are at liberty to reason 
to it and from it, as a positive existence, the negation of 
which would land us in interminable absurdities. 

We cannot be unconscious, however, that we must here 
be prepared to encounter the query, whether, upon the view 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 71 

now presented, the doctrine of the resurrection does not in 
fact resolve itself simply into the doctrine of immortality ? — 
whether it does not in reality exclude the present corporeal 
fabric from any participation in the resurrection, and virtu- 
ally abolish the distinction, as usually conceived, between 
soul and body in the future life ? A fair question, doubt- 
less, in reply to which our first remark is, that if our previous 
train of reasoning be sound and unimpeachable, and if this be 
the natural, obvious, and inevitable sequence which is forced 
upon us, we see not why we should shrink from it. Why 
should we fear to abide by sound conclusions drawn from 
sound premises? Truth is truth, regard it how we may; 
and if the laws of evidence, acting with a power and clothed 
with an authority which the very structure of our minds 
compels us to recognize, force upon us certain deductions 
from acknowledged facts and admitted principles, shall we 
not receive them ? We freely confess ourselves unable lo 
perceive the pregnable point of our foregoing reasonings; 
and so long as this is the case, we feel bound to abide by their 
just results. If these results be deemed of novel charac- 
ter, and such as to involve the most momentous consequen- 
ces to the interests of revelation, still if they are legitimately 
arrived at, we cannot consent to charge ourselves with any 
special responsibility on the score of enouncing them. The 
consequences of truth belong to the God of truth, and to 
him we may confidently leave them. The reader will judge 
for himself how far the conceded facts and premises of our 
arofument necessitate the conclusion to which we have ad- 
verted. If it be inevitable, we abide by it. Although thus 
far pursued merely as an argument from reason, irrespective 
of revelation, yet if it be sound, we not only calmly repose 
in the conclusion, but are unshaken also in the conviction, 
that revelation, rightly interpreted, must harmonize with it. 
It is impossible that any two truths in the universe should 
clash with each other. How far this may aj)parently be the 
case in the present instance, will soon be matter of inquiry. 



73 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



n 



But, secondly, we observe that on no subject in the whole 
circle of human knowledge are we more in the dark than 
in regard to what is usually termed the soul. It is common to 
speak on this subject as if the soul were mere abstract thought 
— pure intellection — capable of subsisting in another world 
in the most absolute and isolated state, without any kind of 
connection with any kind of body. But is thought sub- 
stance 1 In order to thought must there not be something 
which thinks ? — something of which thought is the attribute, 
and not the essence? Granted it may be, and must be, that 
we are unable to detect or define this mysterious substance ; 
but we may still affirm that it must exist, and that no error 
is greater than to suppose, that at death the soul goes forth 
from the body as a hare power of tliouglit — bodiless and 
formless mens — which is indeed in our present constitution 
lodged in a body, but to which a body is not necessary, and to 
which a body is in fact rather an incumbrance. Now to all 
this we do not hesitate to reply, that it is nothing more than 
a sheer hypothesis. It is impossible on the ground either 
of revelation or philosophy to make good the position. 
While our reason assures us that the power of thought does 
not pertain to the gross physical fabric which remains when 
the inhabiting spirit has taken its flight, we are still unable 
to resist the impression, that it dees inhere in something 
which goes forth at the same time with the vital principle, 
and that something we believe cannot be disconnected from 
the ipvxri^ psyche,^ 

* A theme of great interest in connexion with our present subject is 
the sense attached to livxf, psyche, in the more ancient Greek writers, 
especially Homer. In his psychology the word never denotes spirit or in- 
telligence, in the stricter definition of those terms, but always the breath 
or life, considered as the animating or animal principle of man. The 
intellectual principle is denoted by vovi, mind, ?,Top, heart, ^peves, reins, 
(as the seat of the understanding), &c. When a man departs from life, 
the iiyvxn, according to the Homeric belief, leaves the body; and this 
^vxfs continues to exist in hadef? This belief rested on certain material 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 73 

Our indisputable ignorance of the nature of this substance 
disqualifies us equally from denying as from affirming the 
truth of many things that may be predicated of it. The pre- 
cise boundaries between i\\e physical and the p5yc^?caZ parts 
of our nature have never yet been determined. In many 
points they seem to run into each other, and the progress of 



notions, and was in fact fashioned entirely out of rude inferences from 
sensible impressions. Derived from ^u^w, to breathe, it signifies primarily 
the breath or air which we exhale and inhale, and this idea lies at the 
bottom of all the significations of the word in the language of Homer. 
But as the breath is the one visible condition of life, it came at length to 
signify more ordinarily the life, without, however, giving up the primitive 
import of the breath. We can see from this how naturally it should have 
become established in a kind of scieiitijic sense, to denote the idea of vital 
activity, which is closely related to that which constitutes the essence of 
the person, for which it is often employed in scriptural Greek. When a 
man dies a natural death, the phenomena are as if the breath were the 
cause of life. That ceasing, this ceases. But the body remains behind, 
and though the rlvxn is invisible, yet it continues to live, and to live in 
hadeSy the great receptacle of departed human beings. The ideas, how- 
ever, connected with the xLv^fi, verged considerably towards the material, 
as Homer speaks of it as escaping from the epKos goovtcov, the fence or sept 
of the teeth, and also as passing out through a wound. This is still more 
evident from the fact that the existence of the ilv^fi in hades wag consid- 
ered to be in a definite form, which is usually expressed by the kindred 
term etJwAoi , eidolon, likeness, image, shadowy form. The words in 
Homeric usage are most intimately related to each other, and when he 
speaks of the appearance of a departed i//i';^j? to a person hving, the ap- 
parition or phantom is frequently designated by tic(xi\ov, the airy sem- 
blance of a man, as men nppear in dreams, with the form, dress, mien, 
&c., of the real person. We cannot go at length into the discussion, but 
it is obvious that the Homeric ideas ascribe the continuation of the life 
to the \pvx^''^ which abandons the body at death, and with which it has 
never any more concern — that they give to the ipvxv in its disembodied 
state a human form, like the ghosts of Ossian, which is expressed by the 
term zX6u)\ov, an ethereal phantom, which was supposed to be an exact 
resemblance of the man — and finally, that this view approaches much 
nearer the truth, if we have exhibited the truth, than has generally been 
supposed. 



74 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

physiological science is continually multiplying the proofs 
of a most intimate relation between our sensations and the 
subtler physical agencies of nature. It is ascertained too, 
beyond question, that our vital functions are closely con- 
nected, if not identified, with the operation of certain invisi- 
ble powers and elements which we denominate electric or 
galvanic. We know, moreover, that the vitality of plants 
and of the vegetable kingdom generally, is greatly depend- 
ent on electrical influence. The effects produced by the 
shocks of the electrical machine in forcing the growth of 
flowers is conclusive on this head. The whole economy of the 
nervous system is inseparably connected with the operation 
of the same pervading agency. The experiments made by 
submitting the dead bodies of executed criminals to the ac- 
tion of galvanism, go far to evince that it is the same kind 
of influence, which nature, or the God of nature, employs in 
producing the same motions and contractions in the living 
subject. And who is ignorant of the very close relation 
between the nervous system and the mind? Who does not 
know that the healthy state, the due proportions, and the 
kindly influence of the nervous power, will act as an elixir 
of life on the animal spirits, and spread the rainbow hues of 
Paradise over every scene; while the diseased action of this 
,^ same power v/ill clothe creation with a mourning pall, and 
* people every happy abode with the demons of darkness and 
despair? These aerial agencies are, we must admit, too 
subtle and fugitive to be retained within our grasp ; we have 
not yet mastered the laws under which they act ; and any 
one must necessarily be at fault if pressed to explain the 
manner in which their processes are carried on. But sci- 
ence has reached results which certainly warrant the con- 
clusion, thai all nature is pervaded by these active energies, 
and that we are living and moving in the midst of elements 
which directly take hold of the inner vitalities of our being, 
and from the action of which a spiritual body may be de- 
veloped by established laws, as soon as the present tenement 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT, /O 

is forsaken of its informing principle.* To the question, 
whether such a body shall be material or immaterial, we 

* The iniimate connexion between electrical phenomena and light 
goes undoubtedly to favor the idea that the spiritual body will be essen- 
tially luminous. Intimations to the same effect seem in fact to be con- 
veyed by numerous passages of Scripture, where the body of the resurrec- 
tion is spoken of. "When the apostle assures us that our vile body is to 
be " fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body/' we are naturally re- 
minded of the appearance of his body when transfigured, which we can- 
not well regard otherwise than as a pre-intimation of the splendor which 
shall clothe the persons of the risen saints, and it cannot properly be 
deemed a detraction from his glory to know that it is an essential 
property of the substance of which those bodies shall be composed, and 
is disclosed by a necessary law to the eye which is brought into a con- 
dition to perceive it ; for it does not appear that such a perception is com- 
petent to the natural eye. It is to us by no means clear that either the 
transfiguration or the ascension of Christ was beheld by the disciples with- 
out some change in their subjective condition as an indispensable prere- 
quisite, whether they were conscious of it or not. But, however this may 
be, it does not affect the main position, that a spiritual body is, in its own 
nature, essentially luminous and refulgent, and that the Scriptures so 
represent it. We are certainly taught to conceive the bodies of angels as 
of this character, and the condition of the risen righteous is expressly 
affirmed to be angelic. The whole tenor of the apostle's reasoning in 
1 Cor. 15, implies that the resurrection body will be glorious, not only in 
the vague sense of perfecty but in the sense of an actual investiture of 
light. In this view of the subject we cannot but recognize something 
more than a mere figurative expression in such language as the following, 
founded upon a direct allusion to the resurrection: Matt. 13. 43, " Then 
shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,' 
w^ords which naturally refer themselves to a kindred phraseology, Dan. 12. 
3, " They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament , and 
they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever." 
Here we are furnished at once with the clew to Paul's illustration, 1 Cor. 
15. 40, 41 : *' There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial (i. e. 
human bodies) ; but the glorj^ of the celestial is one, and the glory of the 
terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory 
of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star differeth from 
another star in glory." This is merely an expansion of the idea conveyed 
nriginally by Daniel. 

It may be deemed, perhaps, a somewhat prcsumptuoue anticipation of 



76 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

may pledge ourselves to return an answer, when the natu- 
ralist shall inform us whether light is material or immaterial ; 
whether electricity, electro-magnetism, caloric, and the 
principle of gravitation, be material or immaterial ; in re- 
gard to which no one is at present prepared to affirm either 
the one or the other. The truth is^ we know but little of 
the true nature of what we term matter, when we come to 
its more refined and subtle forms. Our ideas of it are de- 
rived mostly from its grosser conditions, of which we do not 
scruple to predicate inertness as one. But the moment we 
turn our eyes to the process of vegetation, we see the so- 
called inert mass of matter putting forth quickening powers, 
and evincing qualities entirely at variance with our previous 



the results which may hereafter accrue from the newly developed phe- 
nomena of Mesmerism, to appeal to them in connexion with a subject 
of such grave moment as that under discussion ; but as our own observa- 
tion and experience, in circumstances that precluded the possibility of 
illusion, have fully established to our minds the leading facts of that sci- 
ence — for science it assuredly is — we have no hesitation in expressing 
the full belief that very important light is yet to be reflected from that 
source on some of the profoundest mysteries of our physical and intel- 
lectual being. Nor is it any less clear to our conviction that the physico- 
psychical system of Swedenborg, in this connexion, is destined to engage 
the study of all reflecting minds; for sure we are that no one can insti- 
tute the comparison that we have, between the facts of animal mag- 
netism and the doctrines of this remarkable man, without seeing that they 
stand in the same relation to each other as do the laws of gravitation in 
the universe to the philosophy of Newton. We have learned — and not a 
little to our surprise — that the system of Swedenborg, so far from being a 
mere wild incoherent farrago of spiritual hallucinations, is really built 
upon a profound philosophy oi matter andof mz??^, and that the question 
of the truth of his theology must be decided by that of his philosophy ; and 
this, strange as it may appear, is rather receiving confirmation thaa refu- 
tation by the results of scientific research. Nor will a supreme regard to 
truth allow us to withhold the declaration, that the view of the resurrec- 
tion advocated in these pages is substantially the same with that taught 
in his writings, though arrived at by an independent process, and before 
we were aware of the features of affinitv between them. 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 77 

definitions. And so when we resolve solid substances into 
gases, we are confounded to find that which before answered 
all our ideas of matter apparently assuming other attributes 
and coming under other laws. Our knowledge is here non- 
plussed, and still the facts are palpable to our senses. We 
know that there are these subtle elements mixed up in the 
grosser materials of our bodies, with which our mental op- 
erations are connected, and upon which they are dependent, 
and we cannot know but that they may exist separate from 
onr bodies, and form in fact, in the strictest propriety of 
speech, a spiritual body. The evidence of this may exist 
independent of our ability to define its essential nature. 
What this is we at present do not know, and cannot define ; 
neither can any one define the nature of Christ's transfig- 
ured body, when seen by Peter and James and John on the 
summit of the holy mount, or that of the bodies of Moses 
and Elias, w^ho appeared on that occasion. If we could 
comprehend the one, we doubtless could the other ; for the 
presumption is, that the Saviour's body at the transfiguration 
was a mere splendid foreshowing of the quality of the post- 
resurrection bodies of himself and his saints. Their bodies, 
we are expressly told, are to be *' fashioned like unto his 
glorious body." 

The opponents of our theory may perhaps take advan- 
tage of this consideration, and apply it to the attributes of 
the gross body which is laid aside at death. They may say 
it is impossible to show, that there may not be a subtle resi- 
duum extricated from the material mass which is deposited in 
the grave, which may be sufincient to form the ground-ele- 
ment of the resurrection-body at a period indefinitely future. 
But in this case we still lack the evidence that the vital 
principle adheres to these ethereal relics of the inhumed 
body, as this unquestionably pertains to that part of our na- 
ture which we term the soul, and which we deem capable of 
assuming a spiritual corporeity without reference to the body 
which it forsakes at death. The grand point which we 



78 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

combat throughout is that which affirms that no true resur- 
rection can take place but by means of the re-union of those 
principles, soul and body, which constitute our being in 
the present life. We maintain, on the other hand, that 
neither reason nor revelation countenances the idea of any 
such re-union. All the purposes of a future existence and 
a state of retribution, we contend, may be answered without 
it ; and as this view completely disembarrasses the subject of 
difficulties which are insuperable on any other, we must hold 
its claims on our credence to be imperative. 

It would seem, then, on the whole, from a collation of all 
the grounds on which an opinion is to be formed, that the 
judgment of reason would be, that a spiritual body is de- 
veloped at death. By spiritual, in this connexion, we mean 
refined, subtle, ethereal, sublimated. By the development 
of a spiritual body, we mean the disengagement— the extri- 
cation — of that psychical part of our nature, with which 
vital and animal functions are, in the present life, intimately 
connected, and which differs from the pure spirit, the intel- 
lectual principle, as the Greek ipvxriy or sensitive principle, 
differs from vovg, the self-conscious intelligence. It is a ter- 
tium quid — an intermediate something between the cogita- 
tive faculty and the gross body. It is indeed invisible ; but 
so are many of the mightiest agents in nature, and so are 
many of the noblest entities in the ranks of created beings. 

We cannot say, indeed, that the evidence of this induc- 
tion is demonstrative ; it is at best perhaps but presumptive. 
Yet the presumption is extremely strong, and it is undoubt- 
edly confirmed by the analogy of insect transformations. 
Recourse is usually had to this source as affording a beauti- 
ful symbol of the separate existence and immortality of the 
soul. But if our suggestions are well founded, it seems to 
shadow forth the development of the spiritual body rather 
than that of the spiritual soul. It is true, indeed, that the 
analogy fails on the score of presenting us in the latter or- 
ganism a substance more nearly akin to the former than we 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT 79 

must suppose will be developed in the case of the spiritual 
body ; but it is still sufficiently close to illustrate our point.* 
Look at that gorgeous variegated tenant of the air, wing- 
ing its easy and joyous way over the flowery garden, or the 
grassy mead, or along the course of the babbling brook. It 
has left its pristine grovelling body in the dust, into which 
it is mouldering away. It can even look down from its 



* In the following extract the author evidently has in mind the com- 
mon view of the resurrection as that of the hody at some indefinitely fu- 
ture period. Abating this feature of the sentiment, and interpreting the 
illustration by our own key, it is strikingly apropos to our present train 
of remark. 

" It seems like a resurrection from the tomb into a fresh life, with celes- 
tial destinations. It is so analogous to that which the human spirit is ap- 
pointed to undergo, that the intellect cannot well avoid viewing the insect 
transformation as the emblem, the token, the natural herald and promise 
of our own. The ancients, without our Christian Revelation, thought so ; 
for one of their most pleasing imaginations, yet visible on some of their 
grave-stones which we dig up, is that of a butterfly over the name or the 
inscription which they record. They place the insect there as the repre- 
sentation of their Psyche — of the animating and surviving soul ; as the 
intimation that it will re-appear in a new form and region of being. It 
is thus analogous to the word ' resurgam' on our hatchments. It beau- 
tifully and picturesquely declares, ' Non omnis moriar — I shall not wholly 
die ; but I hope to rise again.' The allusion and the applicablity are 
so striking, that I cannot but believe that one of the great purposes of the 
Deity in creating his insect kingdom was to excite this sentiment in the 
human heart ; and to raise by it the contemplative mind to look forward to 
a possible revival from the tomb, as the butterfly from its sepulchral chrysa- 
lis. Like the insect, the human personality has three states, and changes, 
and forms of being, but continues indestructible through all. It emerges 
from its ovum into the figure and life of the present fleshy body ; it rests in 
its earthly grave, unextinguished, though visible to mortal eye no longer ; 
and it will emerge from that at the appointed time into its ethereal nature 
and immortalized capacities ; always the same self in each transmutation ; 
never dying or dissolving with its material investment ; but surviving, to 
bloom in everlasting youth amid the most exquisite felicity — the spiritual- 
ized butterfly, with angel wings, perhaps, and an imperishable vitality." — 
Turner's Sac. Hist, of the World, p. 354. 



y- 



80 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

aerial flight, and see the unsightly tenement which it has for- 
saken resolving itself into its original elements. Does it 
need it any more? Of what conceivable use can that 
earthly casement be to it, now that it has received another 
body, developed out of the old one, adapted to the sphere 
in which it moves? Could any thing be gained by attach- 
ing the burdensome incumbrance of the former structure to 
the splendid apparatus of the latter ? Is not the original 
fabric turned to much better account by being resolved back 
into dust, and so going to form the materiel of other worms, 
which shall in their turn give rise to other butterflies? So 
may we justly propose the question of the cui bono in rela- 
tion to the resurrection of our former bodies. What pur- 
pose can they be supposed to answer, provided we have, as 
all reasoning and analogy tend to establish, spiritual bodies 
that have emanated from the material — bodies wisely adapted 
to a spiritual world ? What desirable accession will they 
bring to the conditions of that being upon which we enter 
when mortality is swallowed up of life ? The elements of our 
corporeal frames may eventually find their way into the con- 
struction of bodies that shall enshrine some of the brightest, 
purest, noblest spirits that ever adorned the creation of God. 
Will they not thus be better employed than in being brought 
into conjunction with spiritual bodies that are as perfect 
without them as the butterfly is without its caterpillar fabric? 
The question as to the mutual recognition of the departed 
saints, thus clothed in celestial bodies, though naturally 
suggested by the view now presented, is one that really offers 
no impediment to its adoption. Recurring again to insect 
analogies for illustration, if we can conceive the possibility 
of two individuals of the caterpillar tribe recognizing each 
other as caterpillars, we can readily conceive of their recog- 
nizing each other as butterflies. This may be imagined to 
be a law of the wondrous transmutation which they undergo. 
To like manner, what should prevent the developed spiritual 
body of one human being instantly recognizing that of 



THE RATIONAL AKGUMENT. 81 

another, when their state relatively to each other is the same 
after as before the magnificent transition.* 

We are well aware that in view of all this, the twofold 
question will be at once proposed, What proof is there of 
its truth, and, if true, how is it to be reconciled with what 
are regarded as the express averments of Holy Writ? W^e 
have already admitted that the solution propounded cannot 
be demonstrated to be true, although we doubt not there is 
constantly accumulating evidence that it is true; and if it 
be, it follows of course that the Scriptures must be inter- 
preted so as to agree with it, as otherwise we should have 
acknowledged truths at war with each other. Certain it is, 
in our view, that the hypothesis, if such we are to term it, 
of a resurrection immediately to ensue upon the death of the 
body, involves far fewer difficulties than those which embar- 
rass the popular apprehensions on the subject. As such, we 
are driven to it as a refuge ; and the mere fact that it is not 
incontrovertibly established, forms no valid objection against 
it, when the common theory is attended with difficulties 
equally formidable. If the letter of revelation holds forth a 
view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest 
evidence of facts and the soundest process of reasoning, is 
there no demand, on the other side, for the reconciliation of 

* " Had the resurrection required a reconstruction of relics, or a 
development of stamina, or a reunion of soul and body, it would then have 
required a revelation to prove identity, and only by faith could the risen 
either know their own persons or be known by others ; but no such absur- 
dity is involved in a change beyond conception rapid — the occurrence of 
an instant, and the perception of consciousness. No relic of the taber- 
nacle may remain as a clew to identification ; but no clew is wanted where 
no search is instituted ; and search is precluded where identity is obvious. 
Let the copy be lost when the pattern is found ; let the badger skins 
vanish when the glory is conspicuous. Not more exactly did the taber- 
nacle made with hands correspond to the tabernacle made without hands, 
than the form and lineaments of the faithful in the valley with the form 
and lineaments of the faithful on the mount." — Stephenson's Christology , 
Vol. II. p. 178. 



S^ THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Scripture with science? Are we required to hoodwink 
our faculties in order to do honor to inspiration ? Now, we 
do not hesitate to affirm that the human mind is so consti- 
tuted that it cannot but feel the force of the objections which 
we have urged against the resurrection of the same body, 
or indeed of any body at all, except the spiritual body, which, 
we are compelled to believe, is eliminated at death, by 
established laws, from the clay tabernacles that we here 
inhabit. But if Faith is supposed to be required to reject 
what Reason sanctions, is not this in effect to say that we 
are called to do homage to God's word at the expense of 
doing violence to his work ? — for the human reason is the 
noblest product of Omnipotence. For ourselves, we yield 
to no man living in sentiments of profound reverence for the 
oracles of Scripture ; but we cannot perceive that in cher- 
ishing these sentiments we are laid under the necessity of 
turning a deaf ear to the sober and enlightened dictates of 
our understanding. The only ground on which we can 
recognize the claims to preference of one mode of solving 
a difficulty of revelation above another is, that it goes fur- 
ther towards satisfying the demands of our intelligence, all 
things considered, than the other. If, in the present case, 
we reject the proposed solution, and fall back on the com- 
mon view, on what grounds do we do it ? Let any man 
candidly ask himself whether he is conscious of escaping 
difficulties thereby. If he adopts the common view, is he 
perfectly satisfied with it ? Does he not adopt it subject to 
all the insuperable objections which his own reason urges 
against it ? Can he feel entirely at ease in reposing on such 
a basis of belief? We know, indeed, that one may bring 
the matter to a summary conclusion by referring it simply 
to the Divine Omnipotence, which can, it is said, solve, with 
infinite ease, all the problems connected with the resurrec- 
tion. Contenting himself solely with the assurance of the 
fact, he may say that he perceives no occasion for troubling 
his thoughts with any speculations as to the manner in which 



I 



THE RATIONAL ARGUMENT. 83 

the fact shall be accomplished. We have no disposition to dis- 
turb the intellectual repose,the pious quietism, which breathes 
forth in this language; but we may still be permitted to sug- 
gest that a reflecting reason finds it impossible to contemplate 
intelligently the fact, simply as a fart, without reference to 
the 7node in which it is to be effected. The great question on 
the subject is, What 25 the fact which is asserted, and which 
we are required to believe ? What is the veri/ thing which 
Omnipotence is to do in order to do what is usually deemed 
necessary to the resurrection of the body ? If we have not 
misconceived the prevalent sentiment of the Christian world, 
it is, that the same body which lived, and died, and was buried, 
is again to be raised. Let it be granted that this is the 
asserted /«c^ of Scripture : we array against it the counter 
fact, that, as the raised body is to be a spiritual body, itcaw- 
not be the same. Here are two asserted facts in direct con- 
trariety to each uther. Can the one be intelligently held 
without some attempted explanation of the mode in which it 
is to be made consistent with the other '? Is it an impeach- 
ment of due religious reverence to inquire if there be any 
possibility of bringing our faith and our philosophy into 
accordance on this head ? 

It may, indeed, be replied to this, that the spiritual 
body may be ia some way sublimated out of the remains 
of the material, so that it may still be properly said to 
be the same, just as ice, water, and steam may be said 
to be substantially the same element. But on this view 
we encounter a new difficulty equally destructive to the 
theory. Here, on the one hand, is a spiritual body elim- 
inated from the relics of the earthly fabric, and on the 
other a spiritual body, forming the investment of the soul, 
and on the principle of re-union we have two spiritual bodies 
to be united with each other. Is this the doctrine of the 
resurrection ? And are we required to do reverence to 
revelation by embracing in our creed elements so completely 
at war with each other? Was piety honored in the stern 



84 THE DOCTRINE OF THE KESURRECTION. 

requisition made of Galileo, that he should content himself 
with the literal intimation o^xhe fact, that the sun revolved 
around the earth, when he could adducejrYZc^^ just as imper- 
ative to the contrary ? Would it be any relief to his mind 
to cite Omnipotence as the grand reconciler of facts which 
he has compelled to regard as contradictions? We know 
what has been the final issue in regard to the positions of 
the Florentine astronomer. The demonstrations of science 
in establishing the truth of his theory of the solar system have 
established a principle of transcendent importance in the 
interpretation of Scripture — that the letter of the sacred 
writers does not always accord, especially in matters of phys- 
ical science, with the verity of the sense. This principle 
geology, at a later date, has strikingly confirmed. We have 
for ourselves no doubt that physiology and pneumatology are 
destined to afford another illustration of the same principle. 
The soundness of the principle, on this ground, will be for 
a time earnestly and perhaps angrily contested, as it was in 
the case of these two sciences ; but, triumphing over all gain 
saying, it will finally struggle into universal admission. It 
will be at length every where conceded that the destinies of 
our being are to be evolved according to establisiied laws, 
and not in violation of them. These laws will be developed 
by the progress of scientific research, the conclusions of 
which will carry with them a force of authority as irresistible 
as the literal announcements of the sacred text ; and nothing 
can be gained for the interests of revelation by lifting up a 
standard against them. 

It will have been seen, from the tenor of the preceding 
pages, that the argument from reason leads by fair and un- 
forced inference to the conclusion, that the true doctrine of 
the resurrection is the doctrine of the development of a 
spiritual body at death from the bodies which we now inhabit. 
It now remains to inquire what countenance this view of 
the subject receives from an equally fair and blameless 
interpretation of the canon of Scripture. If the teachings of 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 85 

that divine volume array themselves so unequivocally 
and inexorably against the conclusions to which we are 
brought by the argument from reason, that we can by no 
process of conciliation harmonize the two, undoubtedly we 
are required to abide by the Scriptural decision, whatever 
violence it may seem to do to our rational deductions. But 
this deference to Scripture, in opposition to the demands of 
a seemingly incontrovertible logic, can never be claimed but 
upon the ground of an absolute assurance of having attained 
the true sense of the inspired oracles on this subject. So 
long as a shadow of doubt remains, whether the mind of the 
Spirit does indeed peremptorily contradict the voice of our 
clearest convictions, it -is impossible but that we should 
adhere to that judgment which, from the laws of evidence, 
we cannot avoid forming. To the question, then, of the 
true purport of revelation on this subject we now address 
ourselves. 



PART II. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



CHAPTER I. 
Preliminary Remarks. 

The previous train of our remarks has already inciden- 
tally disclosed the principle which we think is to be applied 
in the interpretation of those Scriptures that more especially 
refer to the subject of the resurrection. It is a principle, 
however, of so much importance as to demand a somewhat 
fuller expansion in this stage of the argument. As it really 

5 



86 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

lies at the foundation of the whole course of exegesis upon 
which we now propose to enter, we wish at any rate to state 
it with the utmost distinctness, as this may perhaps be the 
best mode of establishing its truth. Our impression is, that 
its strongest proof is contained in its clearest enunciation. 

The Bible, as is well known, deals with two distinct 
classes of* subjects — those which are originally within the 
limits of man's rational powers, and those which Sire without. 
Truths that are purely scientific fall into the former class. 
God has endowed his creature man with faculties that 
enable him to push his inquiries very deep into the recesses 
of physical nature, and to make immense discoveries in her 
wide domain. The possession of these powers is itself the 
warrant for the freest exercise of them, and the beneficence 
of the Creator has, in the vastness of his works, provided a 
field in every way commensurate to their boundless range. 
Over this field those *' thoughts which wander through eter- 
nity '' are incessantly prone to expatiate, collecting facts and 
forming inductions. The results to which the reason is 
brought in its researches in many of the departments of 
science may be regarded as certain. The mind, from the 
necessity of its own structure, rests in them as demonstrated 
truths. It cannot conceive them to be established upon any 
higher authority than that which belongs to their own evi- 
dence. Take, for instance, the department of astronomy, 
and consider the process and the result. The astronomer 
takes the universe as it is, independent of revelation, and 
attempts by the most rigid observation to ascertain its struc- 
ture and its laws. He meets, indeed, with difficulties ; he 
is bafi^led again and again in the several stages of his inquiry ; 
he sees not how to adjust the apparent discrepancies in the 
different parts of the system ; but he plies the telescope 
afresh; he institutes anew his calculus; the difficulties 
vanish, one by one, before him ; the most satisfactory issues 
accrue ; he comes to conclusions which assume the charac- 
ter of absolute demonstration ; he enrolls them in the class 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 87 

of known and positive truths ; he settles his science on an 
immovable basis. 

Now we may ask if in all this he is doing wrong. Can 
the process or the conclusion be impeached? Is not crea- 
tion free to his searching inquest? Is he not capable 
of reaching assured results? Yet these results in the 
science supposed are contrary to appearance. Instead of 
finding the earth at the centre of the system, he finds the 
sun at the centre. But the Scriptures, speaking according 
to appearance, represent the earth as the central body, and 
the sun and the stars as revolving around it. What shall 
he do? Shall he give up his conclusions because the letter 
of revelation is in conflict with them, when at the same time 
he is just as well assured of their truth as he is that there is 
any sun or earth at all ? Yet we know that the time has 
been when this was required of the astronomer, because he 
was going counter to revelation, and he could only avow his 
belief by defying the terrors of hierarchical orthodoxy. Yet 
the truth has here finally triumphed, and the world reposes 
in the admission that on this subject the Bible was not 
designed to teach the verities of science.* 

* A humiliating lesson on the force of blind prejudice, in its war with 
the progress of science, is taught in the following extract from the his- 
tory of the proceedings in the case of Galileo, which we have extracted 
from an old work of Benedict Piazza, entitled, Dissertatio Biblico- 
Fhysica, de Literali Propria Sensu SacrcB Scripturcp., published s-tFanor- 
mus, in Sicily, 1734. With a view to economy of space we give an exact 
translation of the Latin original. The object of the work is to maintain 
the sanctity of the literal sense of Scripture, whatever be the subject on 
which it speaks. After laboring this point at great length in a chapter 
entitled, " Systema Mundi Copernicanum sacris Uteris omnino adversari 
atque adeo plusquam falsum esse, ostenditur," the writer proceeds: — 
" The preceding arguments receive at once light and strength from the 
censure and decree of the Holy Congregation of Cardinals enacted against 
the Copemican system and its defender, Galileo. The history of this 
sentence I will first briefly relate. Galileo, the Florentine, having been 
denounced to the tribunal of the Supreme Roman Inquisition for affirming 



88 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Thus too in the kindred department of geology. Set- 
ting aside for the present every thing that inspiration affirms 



that the sun was immovably fixed in the centre of the universe, and the 
earth revolved around it by a daily motion, the two following propositions 
v^ere discussed by the theological censors assembled for the purpose, by 
order of the Pontiff and the Holy College of Cardinals, and noted with the 
following censures : 1 . That the sun is in the centre of the system and 
locally immovable, is a proposition absurd in itself, false in philosophy, 
and formally heretical, because expressly contrary to sacred Scripture. 
2. That the earth is not the centre of the system, nor immovable, but 
revolves by a diurnal motion, is a proposition absurd in itself, false in phi- 
losophy, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. Con- 
sequent upon the declaration of these censures a precept, signed by the 
Commissary of the Holy College before Cardinal Bellarmine, was served 
upon Galileo by order of th*e Sacred Congregation held in presence of 
Paul V. Feb. 23, 1610, commanding him to desist from that opinion, and 
neither to teach nor defend it in any way. A decree was also issued 
from the Holy Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books containing 
such doctrine, and declaring it false and wholly contrary to sacred Scrip- 
ture. But as Galileo, about sixteen years after, violated this precept by 
the publication,, at Florence, of a certain dialogue respecting the twofold 
system of the universe, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, he was cited a 
second time before the same tribunal, where, in due order of justice, a sen- 
tence of the following tenor was passed against him under Urban VIII. : — 
" ' The most holy name, &jc., being invoked, we say, pronounce, judge, 
and declare that you, Galileo, have rendered yourself vehemently sus- 
pected to this body of heresy, forasmuch as you believe and hold a doc- 
trine false and contrary to the divine Scriptures, to wit, that the sun is 
the centre of the solar system — that it does not move from east to west — 
hut that the earth moves — and that it is not the centre of the system ; 
and moreover, that an opinion may he held and defended as probably 
true, after it has been declared and defined as contrary to sacred Scrip- 
ture ; and consequently, that you have incurred all the censures, and 
penalties, b^c.,from which it is our pleasure that you be absolved, pro- 
vided that previously, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, you do 
before us abjure, curse, and detest the above named errors and heresies, 

He: " 

The document closes by assuring the reader that the " boniis Gali- 
leus" made the prescribed recantation on the 22d of June, A. D. 1633. 
The whole affair was thus completely righted. The "Holy Congrega- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 89 

concerning the creation and early history of the globe, the 
geologist takes our planet as he finds it, and goes to work to 
determine from the globe itself its genesis, and in the tab- 
lets of its rocks and strata reads the incontestable proof of 
an immensely greater antiquity than that which appears to 
be ascribed to it by the literal record of Moses. The evi- 
dence on this head is such as the human mind, by its in- 
herent laws, cannot possibly resist, when it is fairly spread 
before it. The enlightened geologist has no more" doubt 
in regard to his conclusions, than the astronomer has in re- 
gard to his. They stand upon the impregnable basis of a 
sound scientific induction. And we ask again. Is he doing 
wrong by thus going on, in the first instance, independent of 
revelation, and working out his problems by the light of the 
evidence which the phenomena of the earth itself afford? 
Is science sacrilege in this sphere of its operations 1 May 
not the earth be studied, as well as the sun and the stars? 
And may not induction here be as legitimate and unim- 
peachable as in the sphere of the kindred science? Yet 
here too we know that the same jealous fear of perilling 
the interests of revelation has been evinced as that which 
impeded the progress of astronomical truth. The bare 
whisper that a longer duration than 6000 years is to be as- 
cribed to our earth, has been drowned in a tempest of re- 
monstrance on the score of endangering the credit of the 
Mosaic annals. But the disciples of geology, assured that 
truth may be Icnown to be truth, have calmly held on in the 
career of observation and inference, till at length there be- 



tion of Cardinals" established the earth at the centre of the system, where 
it properly belonged, the sun was sent again whirling upon his daily 
circuit, and the arch-heretic by a dash of his pen, or a word of his lips, 
transmuted into a true philosopher and a saint worthy the calendar! 
What a pity that, after such an orthodox adjustment, the solar system 
should itself have fallen back into the very heresy which its expounder 
had renounced, and should have obstinately continued in it to the present 
day! 



90 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

gins to be a turning of the tide, and many of the earlier 
opponents of the modern geology are openly ranging them- 
selves in the ranks of its converts. 

The question now comes up whether we shall not regard 
the human body and the human soul as just as truly a law- 
ful theme of independent research, analysis, and solution, 
as the starry heavens or the solid globe. Are we not left 
as free by the Creator to abide by the ascertained results of 
physiology, as by those of astronomy or geology ? Is not 
certainty of conclusion as attainable in the one case as in 
the other ? And is it not just as probable that the Scrip- 
tures should speak according to appearance, and in confor- 
mity with the then state of knowledge, on this subject as on 
any other? Does revelation in this department, any more 
than in any other, preclude the additional light which may 
result from clearer investigation and deeper insight in after 
ages ? Is all knowledge exhausted by what is contained in 
the literal statements and allusions of the sacred writers in 
respect to the constituent properties of our being 1 On what 
principle — by what law — shall we hold ourselves interdicted 
from the most zealous prosecution of our inquiries into this 
department of the Creator's works ? 

But if inquiry here be lawful, are not the conclusions to 
which it brings us to be affirmed with all the confidence 
vyhich the evidence warrants? And suppose those conclu- 
sions should be widely diverse from those suggested by the 
literal sense of the scriptural language, are we therefore 
called upon to forego them at once ? Or, if we adhere to 
them, are our ears to be greeted with the fearful mandate 
issuing from the ecclesiastical tribunal, — abjure — detest — 
curse — as vi^as enjoined upon Galileo ? 

What now is the obvious matter of fact as regards the 
particular subject of our present discussion ? Are not the 
Scriptures constructed on this point, as on all others having 
respect to physical subjects, in reference to the then state of 
knowledge — to the popular impression and belief — among 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT, 91 

those for whom they were originaily designed ? And did 
the Jews and the early Christians know what we know in 
relation to our physical organization ? .Vas the science of 
animal chemistry developed in those early ages ? Were 
they skilled in anthropology ? Did they know any more of 
the settled truths embraced in this sphere of knowledge 
than of those which fall into the department of astronomy 
or geology ? It avails nothing to say that the Spirit 
which indited the Scriptures knew these truths, if the wri- 
ters did not. The Spirit knew too, equally well, the true 
structure of the solar system and the age of the globe upon 
which we dwell. Yet he has not seen fit to speak according 
to his knowledge on those points, and why should he any 
more on this? If there are actually stages in the progress 
of human intelligence; if the collective mind of the race, 
like that of an individual, passes through the grades of 
infancy, childhood, youth, and maturity ; must not a reve- 
lation from God, vouchsafed to the earlier generations of 
men, adapt itself to their existing intellectual stale ? Can a 
child comprehend the deep things of a man ? Who then 
will suppose that the obvious sense of the letter, on subjects 
that admit of continually growing light from subsequent 
discoveries, was intended as a fixed standard of import from 
which no departure was to be allowed ? Would not this be 
like requiring the man to continue to wear the garments of 
the boy ? 

And yet it is unquestionable, that in nothing is the 
divine wisdom more conspicuous than in what we may term 
the elasticity of import in the language of the sacred 
volume. Emanating from that infinite intelligence which 
** understandi the end from the beginning," which embraces 
all truth, and foresees the developments of all created intel- 
lect, the inspired word is so constructed that its language 
frequently adapts itself, in a remarkable manner, to the 
growing light of successive ages, and falls more or less into 
harmony with the ascertained verities of things. We do 



92 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

not say, indeed, that this is universally and in every respect 
the case; for we have seen that in the departments of astro- 
nomy and geology the simple import of the letter does not 
accord with the reality of the facts which we are compelled 
to regard as conclusively established. Nevertheless, the re- 
mark will be found to hold good to a far greater extent than 
we should a priori imagine ; and as to the particular subject 
of the present discussion, no devout reader of the Book of 
books can be insensible to the pleasure of finding, that the 
confident assertion of the results of his rational inquiries 
brings him so little into conflict with the plain averments of 
Scripture ; that a fair and faithful exegesis of the sacred text 
discloses so striking an accordance between its true sense 
and his previous conclusions. Upon this department of our 
investigation we now enter. 



CHAPTER II. 
The Old Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection. 

The emphatic declaration of the Apostle, that Christ, 
through the Gospel, '' hath brought life and immortality to 
light," is evidently not to be understood as carrying with it 
the implication, that the doctrine of a future life, and of a 
resurrection of some kind, is not contained in the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures. The genuine import of the original 
term q)(x)Tl'iHv, conveys the idea rather of shedding additional 
light upon an obscure subject, than that of announcing, de- 
claring, or disclosing it de novo ; and this is confirmed by 
the words of the Saviour himself. Mat. 22, 29 : ^^ Ye do 
err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God ;" 
from which it is evident, that had they rightly scanned the 
purport of their own Scriptures, they would have recognized 
the indubitable traces of this grand doctrine. Still it cannot 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 93 

be denied that the informations couched in the Old Testa- 
ment on this theme are comparatively dark and shadowy, 
more like the dim and feeble glimmerings of the morning 
twilight than the unclouded blaze of the noonday sun. Nor 
can we deny that its intimations do not distinguish very pre- 
cisely between the doctrine of the resurrection^ technically 
so termed, and that of a future existence or immortality . 
So far at least as the tenet of the resurrection is supposed 
necessarily to include the idea of the living again of the 
physical body, we shall probably look in vain for a single 
passage which unequivocally asserts it ; and for the same 
reason we shall probably find ample grounds for doubting 
whether that view of it is sustained any more by a sound 
interpretation of the New Testament. At any rate it may 
be pronounced a question of very difficult solution, why, if 
it be taught in the New Testament, it is not taught in the 
Old, and vice versa. 

It is indeed true, that the doctrine of the resurrection 
enters into the articles of the Jewish creed, and as their 
creed professedly rests upon the Old Testament alone, it 
would seem a problem difficult to be solved, whence their 
faith on this subject was derived, if not from the writings of 
Moses and the prophets. Moses and the prophets do unques- 
tionably contain explicit intimations of a future life, even 
when we can detect no traces of an allusion to the revival of 
the defunct body ; and these scattered notices the Jews have 
wrought together into the semblance of a theory of a corpo- 
real resurrection. They have, doubtless, been the rather led 
to this conclusion by understanding, in a literal sense, a 
number of passages which, rightly interpreted, speak only 
of a mystical or allegorical resurrection — a class of scrip- 
tures which we shall shortly bring under review. 

To one who has made the Rabbinical writers on this 
head a study, the force of their testimony will be vastly 
weakened by their pressing into their service a multitude of 
texts which obviously have not the slightest relation to it, 

5* 



94 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

and which can only be made to bear upon it by a violence 
amounting to torture. Such an one will be struck, too, by 
the endless contrariety of opinion that appears in their 
speculations on the theme. One Rabbi * of blessed memory' 
says this, another Rabbi ^of blessed memory' says that, 
while the citer knows not which to believe, and the reader 
sees no sufficient ground for believing either — '^ each claim- 
ing truth, and truth disclaiming both." It would be an easy 
matter to fill a volume with the conflicting sentiments of the 
Jewish schools on this subject, but happily we are precluded 
the necessity of encumbering our pages with the detail of 
their dogmas and dotings. The question is one to be de- 
cided by a direct appeal to the oracles of inspiration. To 
this we are competent ourselves, and upon it we now enter ; 
although it will be inevitable, in the course of our remarks, 
to make frequent reference to Jewish interpretations. 



CHAPTER III. 

Onomatology ; Definition of Terms, 

As the drift of our expositions will go to show that the 
intimations in the Old Testament of the doctrine of the 
resurrection of the body are at best extremely dubious, so 
the occurrence of corresponding terms by which to express 
it is in proportion but little to be looked for. As the idea, 
however, of such a resurrection is not unknown to the Jew- 
ish writers, there are one or two phrases which are by 
them somewhat familiarly and technically applied to it. 
The principal of these are Ji^^pn and injnn, the former de- 
rived from Q^p to stand up, and the latter from ii^?i to live. 
To the former the Greek word ardaig or avdaraaig, standing 
or standing again, corresponds ; to the latter, dra^icootg or 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 95 

^coo7ioi7]6igy revivification or reviviscence. The use of n^Jipln 
in this sense is probably to be traced in the main to Ps. 1. 5, 
where it is said, ** the ungodly shall not stand (^^i^) in judg- 
ment," which many of the Rabbins understand as equiva- 
lent to a denial that the wicked shall rise at the last day. 
Thus, R. D. Kimchi on the place : rr^nn iir'znh i<b d^SJ^^n 
n^lpn as it concerns the wicked^ there shall not he to them a 
resurrection. The same sentiment is asserted again and again 
by other Rabbinical writers, as we shall have occasion in the 
sequel to evince. The current Hebrew term for resuscitate 
or vivify is 'nyn in the Piel or causative form, a pertinent 
instance of which occurs Hos. 6. 2, where, in fact, both 
terms are r&et with. *' After two days will he revive us 
(fiSi^jn*!); in the third day he will raise us up (^S^p*^), and 
we shall live {^''l?) ^" ^^^ sight." Hence the phrase M^H^ 
ij'^n'arT quickening of the dead, is of familiar use in the 
Rabbinical ^Titings, and traceable to a variety of passages, 
which, though conveying the sense of a spiritual or allego- 
rical revival only, they have generally interpreted according 
to the strictness of the letter, and built upon them the tenet 
of a corporeal resurrection. The evidence of this we shall 
adduce as we proceed. 

The Syriac, while it sometimes employs a phrase literally 
equivalent to resurrection of the dead, makes use, in other 
instances, of the term VlsnA^oJ nuhama, consolation, for ex- 
pressing this idea. Thus John 11. 24, 25, '' Martha saith 
unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the consolation, 
at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the consolation 
and the life." Hence, in the Talmud, the day of the resur- 
rection is frequently termed n^riDn ^^'^ day of consolation, 
and the Targum upon Hos. 6. 2, has the same diction. 
The grounds of this usage will be at once perceived. The 
anticipation of a day when the dead should be raised and 
enter upon their reward, is the great source of consolation 
to the pious in all ages, whatever modifications the ascer- 
tainment of tlie exact truth on the subject may bring over 



96 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the character of the hope. The Arabic has an equivalent 
phraseology, though it frequently employs a term signifying 
the return, i. e. of the soul to the body. 

The prevailing Greek vi^ord used to denote the resurrec- 
tion, as is "weW known, is dvdaraaig, anastasis, derived from 
the verb dviaT7]fii, to rise, to rise again, to stand up. But 
upon the true sense of this term, in this connexion, v^e shall 
enlarge at greater length vi^hen we come to consider the 
New Testament evidence of the doctrine. In 2 Mac. 7. 9, 
we find the term dva^tcoaig : ^^ And when he was at the last 
gasp, he said thus ; Thou indeed, O most wicked man, de- 
stroyest us out of this present life ; but the King of the 
world will raise us up [dva^maeig), who die for his laws, in 
the resurrection of eternal life.'' 

There can be no doubt that in all these cases the usage 
is founded upon ideas drawn from visible objects and phe- 
nomena, and such as were appropriate to a general belief of 
the resurrection, the standing up again, of the defunct body. 
Yet our concern, in the present discussion, is rather with the 
grounds and reasons of the belief, than with the belief itself. 
The truth of the doctrine is one thing, and the Jewish con- 
struction of it another. The sense, therefore, in which they 
used these various terms, though important to be known, 
affords us but little aid in coming at the grand verity itself. 
This can be compassed only by a direct appeal to the Scrip- 
tures themselves, and for this we are now prepared. 



CHAPTER IV. 
Examination of Particular Passages. 

We may properly open our array of Old Testament cita- 
tions with a passage which, but for the use that has been 
made of it, we should never have suspected of bearing at 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 97 

all on the point in debate. This is the promise made to 
Abraham, 

Genesis XVIL 7, 8. 

heb. eng. vers. 

^1^2. ^r'^^S"lni< ^!n*!Dp!n1 Andlwlll establish my cove - 

•■ ••' • '* ■:'■' nant between me and thee, and 

y!?'j^ ^'?!^1 1^5^ ^J^5^ thy seed after thee, in their 

rii^nb Gbii^ n^^^'b nnhh^ generations, for an everlasting 

l^^ n:^ a^1^ n n^i^ tJ^" '^ covenant; to be a God unto 

: Tl^Ti^ SS^'llb^ d%'l'bKb Tib thee, and to thy seed after 

1 IV-: I- 1-. :-: • •• I : ^^lee 

T7^^ "^^-^ll^ 1^ ''^^,5: And I v^ill give unto thee, 

"bS Infi^ ft^^"^/^ V'^^^ t^^i ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ after thee, the 

.T •• ) v' : y V V V land w^herein thou art a stran- 

dpl3? ri^nS^b 1^33 y^S^i ger, all the land of Canaan, for 

. t-tak-.-il..»>L k.i.L '\^lJL^i an everlastino^ possession ; and 

:d^.b^55 a.ib ^n^%^o i win be their God. 



Upon this Menasseh Ben Israel (Z>e Resurrec, Mort. L. 
i. c. 1, § 4,) remarks, " It is plain that Abraham and the 
rest of the Patriarchs did not possess that land ; it follows, 
therefore, that they must be raised in order to enjoy the 
promised good, as otherwise the promises of God would be 
vain and false. Hence, therefore, is proved not only the 
immortality of the soul, but also the essential foundation of 
the law, to wit, the resurrection of the dead." Mede also 
puts the same construction upon the words, and it is gen- 
erally adopted by the Millenarian writers, who very unani- 
mously regard Mede as their great oracle. In reply, we 
observe, (1.) If our previous train of reasoning be sound, 
the drift of which is to evince that the future resurrection of 
the same body is intrinsically inconceivable and incredible, 
it follows that the bodies of Abraham and the patriarchs are 
no more to be raised than any other bodies, whatever may 
be the language of the letter. What is denied of the race 
in toto, must be denied of the individuals in parte. (2.) The 
admitted principles of philology are directly against the pro- 



98 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

posed rendering. By both the Greek and Hebrew usage the 
particle * and ' is very often synonymous with * even,' and 
should be so rendered, i. e. as exegetical of what goes before. 
Thus, 1 Chron. 21. 12, ''The Lord's sword and the pesti- 
lence," i. e. even the pestilence. Num. 31. 6, '' The holy 
instruments and the trumpets,'' i. e. even the trumpets. Eph. 
4. 11, ** And some pastors and teachers," i. e. even teachers. 
Mat. 21. 5, '' Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and 
sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass," i. e. even 
a colt. And so in numerous other instances. Here, there- 
fore, the meaning undoubtedly is, " Unto thee, even to thy 
seed after thee, will I give it." This is all that is fairly 
included in the promise, the immediate object of which is 
not a heavenly but an earthly Canaan. In fact, in the ISth v. 
of ch. 15, as if to preclude the possibility of any mistake re- 
specting the mode of the accomplishment of the promise, it 
is more explicitly defined as follows : — '' In that same day 
the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy 
seed have I given this land^ '' But had the historian," 
says Warburton, '' omitted so minute an explanation of the 
promise, yet common sense would instruct us how to under- 
stand it. A whole country is given to Abraham and his 
seed. His posterity was his representative ; and therefore 
the putting them into possession was the putting him into it. 
Not to ^ay, that when a grant is made to a body of men col- 
lectively, as to a people or family, no laws of contract ever 
understood the performance to consist in every individual's 
being a personal partaker." {2>u?. Leg. B. ii. § 3.) Indeed, 
if the Millenarian hypothesis be correct, the inheritance of 
the land of Canaan by the seed of Abraham in the flesh 
was never a matter of promise. As far as the east is from 
the west, therefore, is this passage from teaching any thing 
at all concerning the resurrection. 

We may next cite the well-known passage from Job, ch. 
19. 25-27, which is not only regarded, in popular estima- 
tion, as perhaps the most explicit announcement to be found 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



99 



in the Old Testament of a corporeal resurrection, but one of 
the clearest in the whole compass of revelation. 



Job XIX. 25-27. 



HEB. 



Sinn ^r?i 4"Kltji* "P^"'^^^ 

I. •• : — : » T T ; 

GR. OF LXX. 

Gib a yccQ on aivvog iaiiv 6 
ixXvtiv fxe, im yrjg 6 avaatrj' 
aag to SsQi^a [xov to avav- 
tXovv Tavra' naqa yciQ Kv- 
Qiov ravra fxoi avvsTeXt^Oij, 
a iyo3 ifj,avT(^ avvsTzidtaiiai, 
a 6 ocpd'alfAog ^lov smquxSj 
}cal ohy, allogj ndvra ds [.loi 
GWisreXsaTai iv y.olnro. 



ENG. VERS. 



For I know that my Redeem- 
er liveth, and that he shall stand 
at the latter day upon the earth : 

And though after my skin 
worms destroy this body, yet in 
my flesh shall I see God : 

Whom I shall see for myself, 
and mine eyes shall behold, 
and not another : though my 
reins be consumed within me. 

ENG. VERS. 

For I know that he is eternal 
who is about to deliver me, to 
raise again upon earth this 
skin of mine, which draws up 
these things. For from the 
Lord these things have hap- 
pened to me, of which I alone 
am conscious, and not another, 
and which have all been done 
to me in my bosom. 



VULG. 

Scio enim, quod redemptor 
mens vivit, et in novissimo die 
de terra surrecturus sum ', 

Et rursum circumdaborpelle 
mea, et in carna mea videbo 
Deum meum. 

Q.uem visurus sum ego ipse, 
et oculi mei conspecturi sunt, 
et non alius; reposita est hsec 
spes mea in sinu meo. 



ENG. VERS. 

For I know that my Redeem- 
er lives, and that in the last day 
I shall rise from the earth ; 

And again I shall be envel- 
oped with my skin, and in my 
flesh shall I see my God. 

Whom I myself shall see, 
and my eyes shall behold, and 
not another : this, my hope, is 
laid up in my bosom. 



No one can fail to be struck with the diversity of render- 
ings here exhibited. The same feature would be still more 
remarkably disclosed were we to multiply, as might easily be 
done, the translations, ancient and modern, which interpret- 
ers have given of the passage. It would, perhaps, be impos- 



100 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

sible to cite any paragraph in the whole compass of reve- 
lation marked by greater variety of construction than 
the present. This does Bot prove, indeed, that the pas- 
sage is intrinsically unintelligible, but it proves that it 
cannot at once and confidently be assumed as bearing 
upon the point to which it is often applied. The mere 
letter of the English version does not afford a warrant 
sufficiently strong for adducing the passage in proof of the 
resurrection. The propriety of such a reference obviously 
depends upon the soundness of the interpretation which 
makes the language of Job a prediction of the Messiah — a 
view which has indeed been held by many commentators in 
different ages of the church, but against which the most 
serious objections exist. 

(1.) The book of Job was not written by a Jew nor in the 
country of the Jews, and therefore not by one who was among 
the inheritors of the promise of the Messiah, or who is to 
be supposed a "priori to have had any knowledge of a Mes- 
siah. Nor is there any other passage in the whole book 
importing that Job knew any thing of such a promised per- 
sonage as the Jews understood by their Messiah. The book 
is not in its genius a Messianic book, but one purely theistic ; 
and we are not at liberty, from the simple occurrence of the 
title ' Redeemer,' which we shall soon show to be more 
correctly translated by another term, to assign to the book 
a character which it has no adequate evidence of pos- 
sessing. 

(2.) Had the present passage really contained such an 
explicit declaration of Job's faith in a coming Messiah as is 
generally supposed, it is certain that he would have been 
entitled to a conspicuous place in that roll of ancient wor- 
thies, recited in the eleventh of Hebrews, who '* have by faith 
obtained an excellent report." But no mention of him occurs 
in that catalogue, nor is he ever cited in the New Testament 
as an example o^ faith, but simply as a pattern o^ patience, 

(3.) Were the words before us to be justly regarded as 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 101 

expressive of his belief in the promised Redeemer of the 
Jewish Scriptures, it would have given him a just ©laim to 
the character o^di prophet, as well as a believer ; yet we find 
no intimation of his ever being deemed to possess that 
character, nor is this passage ever once alluded to by the 
Apostles in their controversies v/ith the Jews in regard to 
the Old Testament predictions of Christ. 

For these reasons we are constrained to dissent from any 
view which recognizes these words of Job as referring to 
the Messiah ; and just so far as the evidence is weakened on 
this score, so far do they lose their force as a testimony to 
the doctrine of the resurrection. 

But we have more positive proof from exegetical sources 
that no such allusion is couched in the language. 

The original word answering to ' Redeemer,' is b2:<h 
Goel, which is variously rendered by interpreters vindicator, 
avenger, deliverer, and is the term applied to him whose office 
it was to avenge the blood of a near kinsman, or to redeem 
a possession which had been alienated by mortgage or oth- 
erwise, as the kinsman of Naomi is said to have been the 
Goel or redeemer of the estate which Boaz bought upon his 
marriage to Ruth. Here then we may suppose it to be ap- 
plied to God considered in the character of a vindicating or 
avenging patron of Job, who would appear as the asserter 
and defender of his injured innocence — innocence, that is, 
so far as the unjust charges and accusations of his professed 
friends were concerned. This divine Vindicator or Re- 
deemer Job was assured was ' living,' however his power 
might now seem to be in abeyance, and that he would one 
day appear standing up in his behalf, but frail and moulder- 
ing dust though he were, and his skin and his flesh con- 
sumed by the force of his wasting disease. He is still con- 
fident that in his flesh, restored to strength and beauty, he 
shall yet in this life see, with his own eyes, his divine De- 
liverer appearing in his behalf and graciously vindicating 
his cause. It is the language of assured confidence in the 



102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

issue which is expressly recorded in the closing chapters of 
the book, among the informations of which we learn, that 
the afflicted saint at length declared, chap. 42. 5, " I have 
heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye 
seeth theeJ' 

This then we conceive to be the fair and unforced inter- 
pretation of this remarkable passage, of which Rabbi Me- 
nasseh Ben Israel says {De Resur. Mort, L. ii. c. 3), '* There 
is nothing in it any way relating to the resurrection; nor 
doth it appear that any o^ the Hebrews ever understood it 
in such a sense. The meaning and import of the words is 
this ; 1 know that he who is the Redeemer of my soul, and 
translates it to a seat of happiness, is living and eternal 
through all ages." Yet this is said by a writer who does 
not scruple, by the most far-fetched perversion, to press into 
his service, in proof of the resurrection of the body, such 
texts as the following: I Kings 1. 31, ** Let my lord king 
David live forever." Ex. 19. 6, '^ And ye shall be unto me a 
kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Num. 15. 30, '^ But 
the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, that soul shall be 
cut off from among his people." Deut. 4. 4, ''But ye that 
did cleave unto the Lord your God, are alive every one of 
you this day." And so with a multitude of others equally 
irrelevant. How is this to be accounted for on the supposi- 
tion that Job's words were ever understood by the Jewish 
-church to refer to this subject? Would it not be the first 
text to which they would have had recourse? 

The necessity of a more extended discussion of this 
passage is precluded by the very ample and able investiga- 
tion of it, into which Mr. Barnes has entered in his elabo- 
rate commentary on this venerable book, in which, after 
summing up, in a masterly manner, the arguments for and 
against the common interpretation, he comes to the clear 
conclusion that it contains no reference either to Christ or 
the resurrection. He closes the discussion with the follow- 
ing remarks, to which we cordially assent : — '* So far as I 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 103 

can see, all that is fairly implied in the passage, when prop- 
erly interpreted, is fully met by the events recorded in the 
close of the book. Such an interpretation meets the exi- 
gency of the case, accords with the strain of the argument 
and with the result, and is the most simple and natural that 
has been proposed. These considerations are so weighty in 
my mind that they have conducted me to a conclusion, 
contrary, I confess, to what I had hoped to have reached, that 
this passage has no reference to the Messiah and the doctrine 
of the resurrection. We do not need it — for all the truths res- 
pecting the Messiah and the resurrection which we need, are 
fully revealed elsewhere; and though this is an exquisitely 
beautiful passage, and piety would love to retain the belief 
that it refers to the resurrection of the dead, yet truth is to 
be preferred to indulgence of the wishes and desires of the 
heart, however amiable or pious, and the desh^e to find cer- 
tain doctrines in the Bible should yield to what we are con- 
strained to believe the Spirit of inspiration actually taught. 
I confess that I have never been so pained at any conclusion 
to which I have come, in the interpretation of the Bible, as 
in the case before us. I would like to have found a distinct 
prophecy of the Messiah in this ancient and venerable book. 
I would like to have found the faith of this eminent saint 
sustained by such a faith in his future advent and incarna-^ 
tion. I would like to have found evidence that this expec- 
tation had become incorporated in the piety of the early 
nations, and was found in Arabia. I would like to have 
found traces of the early belief of the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of the dead sustaining the souls of the patriarchs 
then, as it does ours now, in trial. But I cannot. Yet I 
can regard it as a most beautiful and triumphant expression 
of confidence in God, and as wholly worthy to be engraved, 
as Job desired it might be, in the solid rock forever, that the 
passing traveller might see and read it; or as worthy of that 
more permanent record which it has received by being Sprint- 
ed IN A book' — by an art unknown then, and sent down to 



104 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the end of the world to be read and admired in all gener- 
ations." 

Another passage supposed to bear upon this point is 
adduced from 

Psalm XVI. 9, 10. 



ENG, VERS. 



''1133 bj^"! "'inb n/Jffl iSb Therefore my heart is glad, 

: •••■^r . •; 7"^ '"^ and my glory rejoicelh: my 

: nt^l^D "jSia^ ^^nim-fjl^ flesh also shall rest in hope. 

tli^^b '^'^I^On ']rir\"5^b suffer thy Holy One to see cor- 

' • * "* ' " ' , . ruption. 



The fact of a resurrection is undoubtedly taught in these 
words, and yet from the inspired comment of Peter, Acts 
2. 29-31, it is clear that it is a resurrection predicated of 
the body of Christ, and not of the bodies of men in general : 
*' Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the 
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his 
sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a 
prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to 
him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he 
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ; he seeing this 
before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul 
was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.'' 
To the same purpose is the use made of this passage by 
Paul, Acts 13. 32-37: ^^And we declare unto you glad 
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the 
fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, 
in that he hath raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written in 
the second Pslam, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the 
dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this 
wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore 
he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thy 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 105 

Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served 
his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was 
laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption ; but he, whom 
God raised again, saw no corruption." Nothing can be more 
obvious than that what is here said of the resurrection pro- 
phetically announced by the Psalmist, must be understood 
exclusively of the resurrection of Christ, as preparatory to 
his entering upon the exercise of his sovereignty as head of 
the eternal kingdom over which he was destined, in the 
counsels of heaven, to preside. Of the body which is here 
said to rise, it is predicted that it ^* shall not see corruption," 
but this could neither be said of David nor of the great mass 
of the human race. Their bodies do see corruption. This 
is so pre-eminently the lot of our fallen humanity, that we are, 
each of us, forced to adopt the language of Job, and *^ say 
to corruption, thou art my father : and to the worm, thou 
art my mother and my sister." It is from corruptible that 
we are to be changed and put on incorruption. How then 
can this passage be adduced in proof of the general doctrine 
of the resurrection of the body ? 

Psalm XVII. 15. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

?;^:2 HTrtl^ pn^S ^riS Asforme, I wilFbehold thy 

' ••• r vv;.v » V V : • -: face m righteousiiess : I shall 

:?rrc^"^n "ppM^ »^?^^^? be satisfied, when I awake, 

^ * ^ * *■ • • • ^^j^j^ ^j-jy likeness. 

The doctrinal deductions on any subject drawn from the 
established English version of the Bible, must be judged of 
weight only so far as that rendering justly represents the 
sense of the original. In the present case it is beyond 
question that the words of the Psalmist are very variously 
rendered by different commentators. But even admitting 
that the established version were strictly correct, a perfectly 
fair construction of the language would be to understand it 
as describing the blissful transition of the disembodied spirit 
from earth to heaven at the moment of dissolution. In this 



106 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

sense, as relating to the passage of a redeemed saint through 
the valley of the shadow of death into the immediate frui- 
tion of God, it beautifully portrays the surprise, and won- 
der, and delight, of which the emancipated soul of the be- 
liever will be conscious, when, in a moment — in the twink- 
ling of an eye — he finds himself raised from the gloom of a 
dying bed to the beatific vision of God and the Lamb. As 
the weary traveller, who has surrendered himself to a brief 
repose, is filled with joy when he opens his eyes upon a bright 
sun, a serene sky, and an enchanting prospect ; so when the 
Christian passes through the momentary night of death, to 
the unclouded glory of an eternal day, he will indeed be 
^ satisfied.' His soul will be satiated with the enrapturing 
scene that bursts upon him. He will then not only behold 
the * likeness' of God in him who is '^ the brightness of his 
glory, and the express image of his person," but he will be 
himself conformed to that likeness, and so be fully prepared 
for the experience of inexhaustible felicities in the divine 
presence. 

That the term iiJJi'^tn is used to denote the manifested 
presence of Jehovah, equivalent to d'^DQ face, is clear from 
Num. 12. 8: *' With him (Moses) will I speak mouth to 
mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches ; and the 
similitude (rij^iTsr)) of the Lord shall he behold." This is in 
effect the same as the Shekinah, in reference to which Rabbi 
Menahem thus comments upon the present passage : ** There 
is no coming before the most high and blessed King with- 
out the Shekinah, to signify which thing it is said, ^ I in 
righteousness shall behold thy face.' " Assimilation to this 
image is the privilege of the beatified saints, and it may be 
that Paul has a latent allusion to the present passage when 
he says, ''As we have borne the image of the earthly, 
so shall be bear the image of the heavenly." If it be said 
that this would bring it into connexion with the future re- 
surrection, which is there the subject of the Apostle's dis- 
course, we reply, that this may be admitted without admit- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 107 

ting the resurrection of the body, which is the only point in 
dispute. 

This then must be conceded to form a very appropriate 
and unimpeachable sense of the Psalmist's language, taken 
as it stands in the current version, and this is all that can 
fairly be made out of it. It contains no necessary implica- 
tion of a future resurrection of the body. But in fact the 
words of the original (rjjnjii^^n y^plXi) are susceptible of an- 
other meaning, and one too sustained by a greater array of 
critical authorities. The * awaking' is by them for the most 
part constructed with ' thy likeness,' and not with the person 
of the speaker — '' I shall be satisfied in the awaking of thy 
likeness." Thus the lxx. At the appearing of thy glory, 
Vulg., Cum apparuerit gloria tiia, Vl/hen thy glory shall ap- 
pear. So also the Arab, and Ethiop. Bp. Horsley, When 
thy likeness is awakened. Street, When thy glory awaJceth, 
Geddes, With the re-appearance of thy countenance. Casta- 
lio, Whe7i thy likeness shall be aivaked. The Syriac indeed 
has, When thy truth, or faithfulness, shall awake. But this 
arose unquestionably from their reading in the original 
Tjnj^^ax thy truth instead of ^S;};=i^Sn thy likeness. The Jew- 
ish commentator, Jarchi, is peculiar : 1 shall be satisfied 
when the dead shall awake from their sleep. This preserves 
the general sentiment of the text, but leaves it doubtful at 
what period this * awaking of the dead' is to take place. 
Adopting then the grammatical construction above sug- 
gested, Hammond understands by God's ' image awaking,' . / 
his powerful and glorious interposition for D^iuers rescue 3 -^^'^'^ 
in this world from the hands of his enemies. For ourselves 
we still incline to the former rendering, which is decidedly 
more agreeable to the accents, that seldom fail to indicate 
the true sense ; and guided by them we would translate, *' I 
shall be satisfied, in the awaking, with thy likeness," under- 
standing it of the beatific vision to be enjoyed at the illus- 
trious period of the * awaking' so often spoken of in the 
prophets as identical with the great consummation, when the 



108 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

righteous dead are to be gloriously manifested as risen from 
the dead, but not in a sense to include ^resu7^rection of their 
bodies. The main idea will perhaps be more palpable by 
viewing the passage in connexion with another which seems 
to stand in designed contrast with it : Ps. 73. 20, *^ As a 
dream when one awaketh ("^"^^5 in the awaking) ; so, O 
Lord, when thou awakest, thou shall despise their image." 
Here the image of the wicked, whatever be implied by it, is 
opposed to the image or likeness of God. Their pomp 
and pageantry and splendor, constituting the ' vain show^ 
(d^,^ image) in which they walked, will be but for a mo- 
ment — it can yield them no permanent satisfaction — God 
will blow upon it, and it shall vanish as a dream. But the 
image or likeness of God, which was the object of the Psalm- 
ist's devout aspirations, is but another name for all that could 
yield the most permanent bliss, and therefore he would be 
' satisfied' with it in his final ^awaking.' This expression 
will come before us for further consideration in the sequel. 

Psalm XLIX. 14, 15. 

heb. eng. vers. 

C33?^^ ln^5j ^rW bii^TCb 1^23 , Like sheep they are laid in 

.... V r - ^ : . I - the grave ; death shall feed on 

Uyi'l"^ ^,|5:a2 D"^^Uj^ D:^ ^^n^l them ; and the upright shall 

/^L \i-i-ir^ Lw\i,.; LwLL'v have dominion over them in 

♦ i;^ »ya :^]S^\u i^\^^^ the morning; and their beauty 

^^53 ^125S5"m'^S^ Q'^{l'bK"Tl5!^ ^^^^^ consume in the grave 
"" ' ' -r ' '-' ' i! ' ' from their dwelling. 

: tlOt ^jflj^^ ^3 PliSl^ But God will redeem my 
soul from the power of the 
grave ; for he shall receive me. 
Selah. 

Here again we are presented with a vivid contrast be- 
tween the prospective lot of the righteous and the wicked. 
The Psalmist having mentioned the rich man as not abiding, 
but resembling the beasts and perishing, and those who fol- 
low him, approving his maxims and imitating his example, 
he goes on to say, as we interpret his language, that *' as 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 109 

sheep are brought at nightfall to the folds and there penned 
by their shepherd, so the wicked, when the night of their 
desolation arrives, are placed in Hades bj Death, who acts 
the shepherd towards them (::?"■] lii. pasiorizes them). But 
the righteous survive to tread upon their dust, and triumph 
over them. Though despised during their life, and trampled 
to the ground by their lordly foot, yet the tables are now 
turned, and in the morning succeeding their death the 
righteous have dominion, as the children of Israel had do- 
minion over the Egyptians in the morning after their de- 
struction in the Red Sea — or as an enemy might be said to 
have triumphed in the morning over the army of Sennache- 
rib slain in the night. Their goodly forms, with all their 
beauty, are now^turned to loathsome masses of putrefaction, 
and become the prey of corruption and worms ; and how- 
ever splendid the dwellings they have left, yet now they are 
doomed to remain for ever, without hope of redemption, 
in the gloomy regions of Hades to which they have gone 
down. But thanks be to God, my prospect is not like theirs. 
I have hrpe in my death. Though I may be called to sub- 
mit to the universal law of * dust to dust,' yet I shall not, 
like them, remain irrevocably under the power of the grave 
(bis'i hades). Gcd will redeem my soul from its thraldom 
and graciously receive me to the joys of his presence for 
ever." 

This we deem, in the main, a correct paraphrase of a 
passage, the literal construction of which has given rise to 
vast perplexity among commentators. It yields to our 
minds no evidence of the resurrection of the body, unless 
it can be shown that 'soul' means 'body;' and if the soul 
be understood as denoting the spiritual lody (ipv/rj) we do 
not object to it. But on this view the resurrection takes 
place when the spiritual body leaves the material, which, as 
before remarked, we believe to be the true doctrine. As 
to interpreting the ' m.orning' here of the morning of the 
resurrection, we can only say it is a sense of the phrase 



110 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

which can carry with it no authority, for it is sustained by 
no proof. It rests only upon a fancied analogy, which gives 
rise to an apparently apt and happy mode of speech. A 
cardinal tenet of theology needs a more solid basis to stand 
upor^ The general sentiment of the passage is strikingly 
akin to that of Prov. 14. 32, *^ The wicked is driven away 
in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death.'* 
The prevailing tenor of the Old Testament intimations un- 
doubtedly is, that as the wicked in this life are really sunk 
in a moral or spiritual death, so this state of death contin- 
ues interminably, and nothing is said of their being ever 
awakened from it. It is on this ground doubtless that the 
current of Jewish interpretation denies t^at they have any 
part in the resurrection ; but this fact is very far from teach- 
ing that they do not actually live in an immortal and miser- 
able existence beyond the grave. But our concern with 
the Psalmist's words is simply in their relation, or appre- 
hended relation, to the resurrection of the body. 

The following additional passages, which are character- 
ized by a general identity of import, may be properly classed 
together : 

Ps. 73. 23, 24, " Nevertheless I am continually with thee ; thou hast 
holden me by the right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and 
afterward receive me to glory." 

Ps. 33. 18, 19, " Behold, the eye of the Lord ii upon them that fear 
him, upon them that hope in his mercy ; to deliver their soul from death, 
and to keep them alive in famine." 

Ps. 56. 13, " For thou hast delivered my soul from death ; wilt thou 
not deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light 
of the living '?" 

We wave all remarks on these citations, as the reader 
will have no difficulty in judging for himself how much or 
how little relation they have to the general subject under 
discussion. That they may be construed into a remote ref- 
erence to a future life, is perhaps to be admitted ; but as 
their relation to our present theme is still more remote, we 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. Ill 

can better appropriate the space that might otherwise be be- 
stowed upon them. We advert to passages of a different 
•character. 

Isaiah XXV. 7, 8. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

-s^g n-ttl "ninS ^^^i^ ^"^ ^^ ^^^^^ destroy in this 

' ' f '•' T "^tJ ^ mountain the face of the cover- 

D^'yQ^'n'^B"?^ tj^i-^Jj t5l>M ing cast over all people, and 

.L J-lI L^w^i.b^ ^b-^v^i—b. the vail that is spread over all 

53 5? »i^^C?M mDS^»j;1 nations. _ 

J D^ISn ^^ ^^'^^^ swallow up death in 

, ^ * ^ ~ victory ; and the Lord God will 

nfl'^^ nSj5 ri.i/^M 5521 wipe away tears from off all 

.Vk V«^n^ ^^'^'5-^'^ ^h'-'-i ^^»-rw» faces : and the rebuke of his 

5| 5?a » i?/-.? ♦ 0» L -^^ peopl^ shall be taken away 

b5!a ^"^w"* i^S? IHS'^m'' D^:S IVom off all the earth : for the 



: ^n^ nin^ -3 v^^^r-b^ 



Lord hath spoken it. 



These words come in as part of a splendid paean or 
triumphal song, anticipative of the victory of the Lord's 
people over all their enemies, in the period referred to. 
This period is by all but universal consent assigned to the 
times of the Messiah ; but as this is a very general designa- 
tion, we seem to be guided by the items of the text to that par- 
ticular era of the Messiah's reign, when the the great anti- 
christian city, the mystical Babylon, shall be destroyed, and 
the redeemed saints made to exult over the ruins to which it 
is reduced. It is intimated that at that time this illustrious 
triumph should be celebrated as with a joyous feast, in which 
all believing people should be partakers, who are represented 
as convened for the purpose at Mount Zion in Jerusalem, 
which then becomes the magnetic centre of all true worship- 
pers. At that time it is moreover predicted, the Lord God 
will abolish death for ever, and obliterate the tokens of sor- 
row from the faces of all his servants. The ^ faces of the 
vail or covering,' {'^^hti '^ss) i. e. the v ailed f aces— vsiiled in 
sign of grief and affliction — shall then be utterly done away, 



112 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

and every one assume " the garments of praise for the spirit 
of heaviness." As to the ' death ' here spoken of, we hesitate 
not to understand it with Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and others,* 
not as * death ' in its natural and ordinary acceptation, but 
as another term for all manner of grievous afflictions, perse- 
cutions, wars, pestilences, sicknesses, every thing, in fact, 
of a deadly and desolating nature — every thing which causes 
grief, mourning, and tribulation. It is that kind of death 
of which the Psalmist speaks when he says, Ps. 44. 22, *' For 
thy sake are we killed all the day long," and of which it is 
predicted in the parallel prophecy of the New Jerusalem, 
Rev. 21. 4, '' There shall be no more deatli^^^ i. e. no more 
premature death by disease, pestilence, casualty, the sword 
of war, broken hearts, or any form of wasting judgments. 
This is the kind of death that shall be swallowed up in 
victory, or, as the term is otherwise rendered, ' for ever,' at 
the time to which the oracle points forward. That this time 
is not the end of the world, or the winding up of the great 
mundane dispensation, is perfectly obvious from the context. 
For it will be seen that this hallowed carnival of Zion is 
merely the ushering in of a state of permanent rest, peace, 
prosp(3rity, and glory, during which Moab, or all the alien 
enemies of the church, shall be put dovvn, and all the prom- 
ises of abidinor blessedness to the Christian kinadom be 
realized. 

But it will be said that Paul has quoted this passage, 
1 Cor. 15. 54, and unequivocally applied it to the grand 
era of the resurrection of the dead, which must, of course, 
be synchronical with the termination of this world's desti- 
nies and the final scene of judgment : *' So when this cor- 
ruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall 
have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the 
saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." 
To this we reply, that such cannot be the meaning of Paul, 
provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah. The Spirit that 
presided over both cannot utter oracles at variance with 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 113 

themselves. But nclhing can be mere obvions, from the 
whole drift of the prrphet's strain, than that he is not bpeak- 
ing of the end of the world. He is merely setting before 
us one of the links in the great chain of events which are 
to distinguish the latter days of Zion's welfare. How then 
is the apostle's quotation to be understood ? An alternative 
of constructions is presented. He either cites the language 
of Isaiah as containing an announcement, the words — the 
letter — of which are strikingly applicable to the state of 
things which he is describing, without assuming that they 
were originally intended to refer to it; or, acting the part of 
an inspired expositor of Isaiah, he applies his language to 
the period of time which the Holy Ghost had in view in in- 
diting it through the prophet; and this brings us irresistibly 
to the conclusion, that the epoch of the resurrection de- 
scribed by Paul is not to be placed at the end of the world, 
which Isaiah's abolition of death certainly is not. This idea 
is doubtless somewhat favored by the mention, in the same 
connexion, of the 'sounding of the last trumpet,' which, as 
it must be considered as identical with the seventh Apoca- 
lyptic trumpet, announces an order of events to commence 
with ''the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdoms 
of our Lord and of his Christ," as is evident from Rev. 1 I. 
15: "And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great 
voices^in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are 
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and 
he shall reign for ever and ever." But this, so far from 
being the final consummation of the globe or the human 
race, is merely the commencement of its ultimate bliss and 
glory. With the data now before him, the reader must form 
his own judgment of the principle on which the apostle's 
quotation is made, as also of the degree of evidence which 
the present passage affords of the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion of the body. If, as we shall endeavor to show in the 
sequel, the language of Paul in the loth of Corinthians 



114 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

yields no countenance to that theory, it certainly cannot be 
considered as taught in the parallel language of Isaiah. 

Isaiah XXVI. 19. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

V\12^P^ ^rbn^i ^^t^)2 ^^n^ Thy dead men shall Uve to- 

' '• • ^ V-, »••••• ;• gether With my dead body shall 

"^3 13^ "^jSIZ: ^5S^1 ^^^PO they arise. Awake and sing, 

d*^*-^l^.kp»^^'w ta-Vy\ l,uw^^ Lt-A ye that dwell in dust: for thy 

♦ ^^£5n th^ earth shall cast out the 
* ■" dead. 

The present passage can only be rightly apprehended by 
viewing it in connexion with the preceding context, com- 
mencing at V. 13. As the general scope of the chapter is 
to celebrate the national deliverance from exile and bondage, 
and the destruction of the enemies who had tyrannized over 
them, so the drift of this paragraph is to draw a graphic con- 
trast between the lot of their former lordly oppressors, and 
the favored and felicitous condition of the chosen people 
themselves. ** O Lord our God, other lords beside thee 
have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make 
mention of thy name." However their sins had reduced 
them to the hard rule of other lords and masters, and extorted 
from them a forced homage to their captors, yet henceforth 
they will know such subjection no more, but will profess alle- 
giance only to the true God, their covenant Lord, and make 
mention of his name alone. They are dead (0*^17^ dead 
men, corpses), they shall not live (live again) ; they are de- 
ceased (ti'^l5<S^ deceased giants or tyrants), they shall not 
rise; therefore ('j3b="iil?yt l^b hy reason that, because. Gesen.) 
thou hast visited and destroyed them, and made all their 
memory to perish." Such was to be the doom of their ad- 
versaries. Then, after descanting upon the blessings of their 
restoration — the enlargement of their territory — the increase 
of their population, and their former weakness compared 
with their present strength — the restored nation, in the per- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 115 

son of the prophet, bursts forth into the language of strong 
assurance, and exclaims, '* Thy dead men shall live, together 
with my dead body shall they arise : awake and sing, ye that 
dwell in dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the 
earth shall cast out the dead," The translation of Lowth 
gives, we think, the true sense with more precision : 

Thy dead shall live, my deceased, they shall arise ; 

Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust ! 

For thy dew is as the dew of the dawn ; 

But the earth shall cast forth, as an abortion, the deceased tyrants. 

** This deliverance,'' he remarks, '* is expressed with a 
manifest opposition to what is said above, v, 14, of the great 
lords and tyrants under whom they had groaned : 

They are dead, they shall not live ; 

They are deceased tyrants, they shall not rise. 

That is, they should be. destroyed utterly, and should never 
be restored to their former power and glory.'' 

The comment of Mr. Barnes on this passage gives what 
we conceive so fair and happy an exposition of its meaning, 
that we quote it at length in this connexion. '* In v. 14, the 
chorus (rather the nation, for this idea of a chorus is wholly 
conjectural) is represented as saying of the dead men and 
tyrants of Babylon that had oppressed the captive Jews, that 
they should not rise, and should no more oppress the peo- 
ple of God. In contradistinction from this fate of their 
enemies, the choir (nation) is introduced as addressing Je- 
hovah, and saying, * Thy dead shall live ;' that is, thy peo- 
ple shall live again ; shall be restored to vigor, and strength, 
and enjoyment. They are now dead, that is, they are, as I 
understand it, civilly dead in Babylon ; they are cut off from 
their privileges, torn away from their homes, made captive 
in a foreign land. Their king has been dethroned ; their 
temple demolished ; their princes, priests, and people, made 
captive; their name blotted out from the list of nations; 



116 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

and to all intents and purposes, as a people, they are deceased. 
The figure is one that is common, by which the loss of 
privileges and enjoyments, and especially of civil rights, is 
represented as death. So we now speak of a man's being 
dead in law; dead to enjoyment; dead to his country; 
spiritually dead ; dead in sins. I do not understand this, 
therefore, as referring primarily to the doctrine of the 
resurrection of the dead, but to the captives in Babylon, 
who were civilly dead, and cut off by their oppressors from 
their rights and enjoyments as a nation. Shall live. Shall 
be restored to their country, and be reinstated in all their 
rights and immunities as a people among the nations of the 
earth. This restoration shall be as striking as would be the 
resurrection of the dead from their graves.* Together ivith 



* Mr. Barnes, in agreement with Lowth, adds in this connexion, — 
"Though this doea not refer primarily to -the resurrection of the dead, 
yet the illustration is drawn from that doctrine, and implies that that 
doctrine was one with which they were familiar. An image which is em- 
ployed for the sake of illustration must be one that is familiar to the 
mind, and the reference here to this doctrine as an illustration is a de- 
monstration thai the doctrine of the resurrection was well known." The 
same position was assumed in the early days of the Christian fathers. 
TertuUian (De Resur. Cam. c. 30) says, '•' Non enim posset de ossibus 
figura componi, si non idipsum et ossibus eventurum esset :" /or a figure 
would not have been constructed in respect to the hones, if the same 
thing were not to happen to the bones also. Jerome, in like manner, on 
Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, remarks, " Nee statim haereticis occa- 
sionem dabimus, si haec de resurrectione communi intelligi denegemus, 
Nunquam enim poneretur similitudo resurrectionis ad restitutionem 
Israeli tici populi significandam, nisi esset resurrectio ipsa et futura credere- 
tur; quia nemo de rebus non extantibus incerto confirmat:" nor shall we 
at once give advantage to heretics if we deny that this is to be under- 
stood of the general resurrection ; for a similitude drawn from the 
resurrection to denote the rest oral ion of the people of Israel, would 
never have been employed unless the resurrection itself were believed to 
be a fact of future occurrence ; for no one thinks of confirming what is 
uncertain by what has no existence. The same idea is to be found also 
among the Jewish writers. The sentiment quoted above, though donbt- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 117 

my (lead body shall tliry rise. The words 'together with' 
are not in the original. The word rendered * my dead be dy' 
(^rbrs) literally means * my dead body/ and may be applied 
to a man or to a beast. Lev. 5. 2, 7. 24. It is also ap- 
plied to the dead in general, to the deceased, to carcasses 
or dead bodies. See Ps. 79. 2. Jer. 7. 34, 9. 22, 10. 18, 
26. 23. Lev. 11.11. Jer. 34. 20. It may therefore be ren- 
dered my deceased, my dead; and will thus be parallel 
with the phrase * thy dead men,' and is used in the same 
sense with reference to the same species of resurrection. It 
is not the language of Isaiah, as if he referred to his own 
body when it should be dead, but it is the language of the 



less expressing the conviction of the author at the time it was written, 
can be regarded in reality only as a concession to popular notions. If 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was well known to the an- 
cient Jews, we would gladly be informed whence they obtained it, as it 
certainly is not to be found in their Scriptures, and we have no reason to 
think it was a Koxxpiov Soyfxa, a matter of private revelation, of which the 
writings of Moses and the prophets contain no trace. That they were 
not ignorant of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as equivalent 
to ^future life or immortality, is very readily granted, but the doctrine 
of the resurrection of the body is quite another thing, as we shall prove 
in the sequel. Moreover, we object to the asserted principle of the above 
remark, that an image which is assumed in order to represent any thing 
in the way of allegory or metaphor, whether poetical or prophetical, must 
be an image commonly known and understood, as otherwise it will not 
answer the purpose for which it is assumed. We allow our strictures 
upon it to be conveyed^ in the language of Mr. Noble {Appeal, p. 57) : 
" Is not this saying that nothing must be used as an image in poetical or 
prophetical language, which is not at the same time a matter of fact in 
common language. Might we not as well have said, because the Lord 
declares to him that overcoraeth, in the Revelation, 'I will give him the 
morning star,' — ' It appears from hence that the belief that saints will be 
presented with stars, was at that time a common or popular belief — or, 
because John says that he saw a woman clothed with the sun, — ' It 
appears from hence, that to suppose that a woman might be clothed with 
the sun, was at that time a common and popular supposition/ &c. The 
cases are exactly parallel, and one inference is as just as the other." 

6* 



118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

choir that sings, and that speaks in the name of the Jewish 
people. That people is thus introduced as saying my dead, 
that is, our dead shall rise. Not only in the address to Je- 
hovah is this sentiment uttered, when it is said, * thy dead 
shall rise,' but when attention is turned to themselves as a 
people they say, * 02ir dead shall rise ;' those that appertain 
to our nation shall rise from the dead, and be restored to 
their own privileges and land."* 

This must be admitted to be a very luminous exposition 
of an obscure passage, and we would only add to it the re- 
mark, that Gesenius and other commentators take the word 
*ir.^n3 in a collective sense — ** my dead bodies'' — and this 
he says is equivalent to '* the dead bodies of our people ;" for 
he understands the people, the nation, to be the speaker 
throughout, who sometimes speaks in the first person sin- 
gular, and sometimes in the first person plural. The dead 
of God's people, according to Gesenius, may be denominated 
either God's dead or i\iQ people's dead. That the word is to 
be taken collectively appears obviously from the connected 
verb "j^^^p*? , shall rise, which is plural, and also from the 
usage. Lev. 11. 11, ** Ye shall have their carcasses (on^::?) 
in abomination," where the word is plainly a collective sin- 
gular. So also all the versions, which, however, for the 
most part, change the pronominal suffix. Thus the Vulg. 
Int erf ecti mei resurgent, My slain shall rise. Chald. Thou 
awakest the bones of their dead bodies. Syr. Their dead 
bodies shall arise. Arab. Their dead body (that of the peo- 
ple) shall arise at thy command. Kimchi, whose construc- 
tion our translators have somehow strangely followed, sup- 
plies D^ with, before '^nb^D, making it to mean, they shall rise 
in connexion with my dead body, which is altogether against 



* A somewhat similar abrupt change of persons is to be recognized, 
Zech. 14. 5 : " The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee," 
not loith him, as is undoubtedly the true sense. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 119 

the context, as the resurrection spoken of is one that was to 
take place during the lifetime of the speaker (the nation). 

The latter clause of the passage — *^the earth shall cast 
out the dead" — is perhaps usually understood as perfectly 
synonymous with the foregoing, and as referring to the same 
subjects. But this is undoubtedly a mistake, The term 
for ^dead' is ti'^xsh, which in Scriptural usage is a term of 
reproach^ being the same with that employed above, v. 14, 
to denote the deceased tyrants, of whom it is affirmed that 
they shall not live again. So that if in the preceding clause 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught, here 
obviously is mention made of a class of men who are never 
to rise again at all in the true sense of a resurrection. 
The dead here spoken of are the wicked dead, and more es- 
pecially those cruel persecutors, of kindred spirit with the 
antediluvian rebels, who are primarily designated by this 
term in the Scriptures, and of whom it is in effect declared 
that the earth casts them out with loathing from her bosom, 
as if no longer able to bear the burden of their accursed 
dust. For the earth, however, thus to ^cast out her dead' 
is not to make them the subjects of a resurrection, but im- 
plies rather the utter and final destruction and dispersion of 
their remains, as unworthy to be any longer retained in their 
resting-place. 

Our remarks thus far upon this clause have proceeded 
upon the assumed accuracy of the established version, which 
makes 'earth' the subject of the verb here rendered 'shall 
cast out.' But it is to be observed that the words are sus- 
ceptible of a very different sense. The root of the verb is 
^s: to fall, and b^3n is the future of the Hiphil or causa= 
live form, signifying to cause to fall, to cast doivn ; in which 
case the rendering may be, *'Thou wilt cause the earth 
or land of the giants (tyrants) to fall;" and this accounts 
for several of the ancient v^|Jons, which greatly vary from 
our common rendering, Tnus the Gr. / dh yij Ta)v aas^wv 
-^^a-nrai, the land of the ungodly shall falL Syr, But thou 



120 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

wilt overturn the land of giants. Arab, But the land of the 
ungodly shall totter. The wicked to whom thou hast given 
power and they have transgressed thy word, thou wilt coU' 
sign them to hell, Vulg. Et terram gigantum detrahes in 
ruinam ; and the land of the giants thou 2oilt drag down to 
ruin. We feel scarcely competent, amidst this variety of 
construction, to determine the precise import of the pas- 
sage, but it would seem clear that it is designed to set forth 
a striking contrast between the predicted lot of the two dif- 
ferent classes of men here described. Of the one a resur- 
rection in some sense is affirmed, of the other denied. And 
this, we conceive, brings the passage into direct parallelism 
with Dan. 12. 2, **And many of them that sleep in the 
dust of the earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, and 
some to shame and everlasting contempt,'' where the letter 
undoubtedly would seem to imply that a resurrection was 
predicated equally of both classes. But it will be seen, from 
the explication shortly to follow, that the ^'shame and ever- 
lasting contempt" is but another name of the condition 
which results from their not aivaking at all. And this 
agrees with the general sentiments of the ancient Jews, who 
held for the most part that the wicked are never to rise from 
the state of death ; because, being spiritually dead even in 
the present life, there is nothing in them on which a re-ani- 
mating principle can act. With the righteous, on the other 
hand, their resurrection is indissolubly connected with their 
present possession of spiritual life, of which the resurrec- 
tion is but the natural development.* Probably but few 
readers of the New Testament have failed to be struck wMth 
the fact, that both our Saviour and the apostle Paul speak 
of the resurrection-state as one to be attained only by one 
class of men — " the sons of the resurrection'' — and one 



* In the Jerusalem Gemara (Suppl.) it is said that " the righteous, 
even in death, are said to live, and the wicked, even in life, are said to be 
dead.'''—Lightfoot, Opera, vol. ii. 131, See also the note, p, 313. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 121 

which is to be struggled into through great conflicts and 
tribulations. This fact can only be explained by reference 
to the prevailing traditionary sentiments of the Jews on the 
subject. 

On the whole, we think it must be evident that the pas- 
sage from Isaiah now under consideration cannot be appealed 
to as teaching, upon a fair construction, the resurrection of 
the body. At any rate, if it conveys such an implication, it 
is only in an indirect and typical way, by which a national 
reiiuscitation — the primary sense — dimly shadows forth the 
re-erection of the defunct body from its mouldering ele- 
ments. But we may properly ask if such a cardinal tenet 
of revelation has nothing else to rest upon, as far as the Old 
Testament is concerned, than a figure of speech. Whatever 
stength the words may appear to possess as bearing upon 
the point in question, it is evidently derived from the mere 
form of the expression in the English version, ** together 
with my dead body," which we have shown to be a palpable 
perversion of the original, where we find nothing answering 
to ** together with," and where the term rendered ** my 
dead body," far from having the Jeast allusion to the dead 
body of Isaiah, is merely a collective term for the restored 
mass of the Jewish nation. 

EZEKIEL XXXVII. 1-14.* 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

"^K^LiVI nSl*"T' *b^' mF"!! "^^^ hand of the Lord was 

'.•• • - T : - .-T t: it upon me, and carried me out in 

TjlP^l "?^j^"^ nirr ri^Pn the spirit of the Lord, and set 

, ^^'.^'.>.«« ».V)^'.-« w>«^k,^l^>.^t^kJi nie down in the midst ofthe val- 

♦ n i-.^^ I ,N^- w^ » j^i» J>|>^M le^, ^,.1-,^^!^ ,^.^^ f,,,l of bones, 

IL^HS ^^n^bS *Z'*'1^3'f"»1 ^^^ caused me to pass by 
» • "^ . y ••-: •- • v; iv: them round about: and behold, 

>^ \iSU I ! !^j J im\ \) -. -u there were very many m the 

ini^^::"' hsr; nyD^n ^"S openvalleyjandlo, they were 
. .; Ti:~ - •• : very dry. 

: n^:-; &c. 

&c. 

* We spare ourselves the more full and formal exposition of this pas- 



122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The prophet was now in captivity with the Israelites in 
Babylon, and being brought into a state of prophetic ecstasy 
or trance, was led forth in spirit, or ideal transfer, to a val- 
ley filled with an accumulation of dry and withered bones, 
over which he was commanded to prophesy, in order to their 
vivification. The vision then goes on to state, that the bones 
came together, were clothed with flesh and skin, were animat- 
ed with a reviving breath, and finally, that^* they lived, and 
stood up on their feet, an exceeding great army/' If the 
reader were to proceed no farther he might conclude that 
the grand scope of the vision was to teach the doctrine of 
the literal resurrection of the body ; but the Spirit of in- 
spiration immediately furnishes the true clew to the oracle, 
by expressly assuring us that the bones were symbols, not of 
actually deceased men, but of the Israelites in their long-con- 
tinued state of extreme affliction -and depression, while re- 
maining captive in the country of their enemies, as dead 
bones in the grave ; and that the revivification of the dry 
bones is a symbol of the certain revival of the Jewish state, 
by the restoration of the people to their own land. For thus 
the prophet continues, vs. 11-14 : ** Then he said unto me, 
Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel : be- 
hold, they say. Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost; we 
are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy, and say unto 
them. Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will 
open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your 
graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall 
know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, 
O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and 

sage in our wonted manner, from the fact, that we have recently given to 
the public an extended commentary upon it, in a pamphlet entitled, " The 
Valley of Vision ; or the Dry Bones of Israel Revived," in which we 
flatter ourselves we have clearly established the position, that this predic- 
tion, in its true sense, has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead 
body, but is merely a symboUcal foreshadowing of the still future restora- 
tion and conversion of the Jews. We venture to commend this pamphlet 
to the attentive perusal of the reader. 



THE SCRIPTURAL. ARGUMENT. 123 

shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live ; and I shall 
place you in your own land : then shall ye know that I the 
Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." 

So far as the letter is concerned, it would be difficult to 
find any other passage in the Scriptures, where so much is 
said respecting the opening of graves, and the bringing up 
out of graves ; and yet nothing can be more express, and 
consequnetly more imperative, than the interpretation which 
the Spirit of God himself puts upon the prophetic scenery, 
and to which the commentator must adhere, whatever infer- 
ential additions he may see fit to graft upon it. 

We are aware it is contended here also, as in the case 
of the preceding passage from Isaiah, that the announce- 
ment of a spiritual or figurative resurrection necessarily 
supposes a literal. But to this we reply by demanding the 
Scriptural evidence that such a resurrection was taught or 
believed in Ezekiel's times. The fact is, it will be found, 
if we mistake not, that the usual argumentation on this 
head is mere reasoning in a circle. Certain passages, like 
those now adverted to, are brought forward, elaborately 
commented on, and conclusively shown to refer to a symholi- 
cal resurrection. But from the force of established belief it 
is strenuously contended, that all these images are founded 
upon the doctrine of a literal corporeal resurrection, and 
when we call for the proof of this doctrine, lo and behold 
we are referred to the very passages which w^ere previously 
demonstrated to have another meaning ! 

HOSEA VI. 2. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

^^^blSn Di^S D*S2*^/J ^li^^ln^ After two days will he revive 
• • I - Jl * ^ "-s us; in the third day he will 

\ ViSb n^illl ^5/3p^ raise us up, and we shall hve 
m his sight. 

The sound of these words undoubtedly falls on the ear 
like the explicit enunciation of the doctrine of the literal 



124 THE DOCTRINE t)F THE RESURRECTION. 

resurrection. Yet upr>n a more minute scanning of the 
passage we are perhaps prompted to say with the poet : 

" The voice in my dreaming ear melted away.'* 

Taken in connexion with the verse immediately preceding, 
*^ Come, and let us return unto the Lord ; for he hath torn, and 
he will heal us ; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up," the 
' reviving' and * raising up' has very much the air of implying 
something which they were to experience as the result of 
their penitent return to the Lord who had torn and smitten ; 
and this certainly does not strike us as altogether consistent 
with any action that could be performed by dead bodies in 
the grave, of neither of which do the words contain any 
mention. It is obvious that in order to deduce from the 
passage an unequivocal testimony to the tenet of a bodily 
resurrection, it would be necessary to determine icho are the 
subjects contemplated in the prediction, and when and how 
the prediction was, or was to be, fulfilled upon them. It 
would undoubtedly seem from the context that the tribes of 
Israel, in their bondage and affliction, were the real speakers, 
and the query then naturally occurs, whether any period of 
three days can be specified in their history when the quick- 
ening and the raising up here announced actually took place. 
But a moment's reflection repudiates the idea of any such 
mere fragment of time being the true-meant design of the 
prophet. A longer period, and o^ future occurrence, is un- 
questionably intended, and the designations of time must be 
figuratively understood. How the oracle is understood by 
the Jews, who somewhat differ among, themselves, will be 
evident from the following citation : *' The two days,'^ says 
R. Solomon, ** are the times of the two punishments which 
have taken hold upon us in respect of the two temples which 
have been destroyed. In the thirdday^ that is, at the build- 
ing of the third temple, he will raise us up." Rabbi D. 
Kimchi reports from other writers a different sense : '' The 
two days are a figurative expression of two captivities, the 
Egyptian and the Babylonish : the third day, a like expres- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 125 

sion of the third captivity in which we now are, from which 
he will raise us i/p, and we shall live before him, so as that 
we shall never more go into captivity, but live forever before 
him, because we shall no more sin." The Chald. paraphrase 
would seem to come still nearer the truth : ** He will revive 
U3 in the days of consolation which are to come, in the day 
of the resurrection of the dead he shall raise us up, and we 
shall live before him." This latter clause is rendered by 
Abarbanel, " Perpetui in ejus cultu enmus,^' loe shall alwai/s 
abide in his service. On the whole, we think there is a foun- 
dation for these interpretations, and with Horsley believe 
that the two days and the third day denote three distinct pe- 
riods of the Jewish people, as there can be no doubt that 
the term * day' is often taken in the Scriptures in a very ex- 
tended import. *' The first dny is the captivity of the ten 
tribes by the Assyrians, and of the two under the Babyloni- 
ans, considered as one judgment upon the nation ; beginning 
with the captivity of the ten, and completed in that of the 
two. The second day is the whole period of the present 
condition of the Jews, beginning with the dispersion of the 
nation by the Romans. The third day is the period yet to 
come, beginning with their restoration at the second advent." 
[Comment, on Hos. in loc.) That an event denominat€^ a 
resurrection was connected, in the minds of the ancient 
Jews, with this great day or period of the Messiah, and that 
this expectation is sustained by the general tenor of their 
Scriptures, is we think beyond doubt. But this still leaves 
the question open as to ihetrue nature of that resurrection — 
a question upon which we shall hope to throw light as we 
proceed. 

To such a period we think there is a designed allusion 
in the present text, which will make it to be of very similar 
purport with the prophetic intimations of Ezekiel, ch. 37. 
1-14, respecting the revival of the dry bones in the valley 
of vision. At the same time we know not well how to resist 
the evidence, that this passage is also alluded to in the New 



126 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Testament, and construed in reference to the resurrection of 
Christ on the third day. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 4, says that 
Christ *' was buried and rose again the third day^ according 
to the Scriptures.'^ Here it is contended thai there is no pas- 
sage in the Scriptures, unless it be the present, where this 
fact can be considered as alluded to. It is indeed replied, 
that he may have had his eye on the case of Jonah, which 
our Lord himself applies in a typical relation to his resurrec- 
tion on the third day. But even if this be admitted, it does 
not necessarily follow that such was the primary and legiti- 
mate design of either of these passages, as there can be no 
doubt that the words of the Old Testament writers are occa- 
sionally accommodated, from a certain adaptedness in the 
phrase or general sentiment, to New Testament facts or doc- 
trines. Nor yet on the other hand, can we positively affirm 
that such an ultimate bearing of his language was not intend- 
ed by the inditing Spirit, to whom all possible applications of 
his truth were naked and open. It will be sufficient, in the 
present case, to maintain that as the passage, in its original 
scope, refers to a signal interposition in behalf of the Jewish 
people, by which they should be raised out of their depression 
and crowned with especial tokens of the divine favor, it can 
have but a remote reference to the resurrection in any sense, 
and to the resurrection of the body in no other sense than 
that of Christ's body, which, while it is a. pledge, cannot be 
said to be a. pattern of ours, inasmuch as his body did not 
see corruption, while ours do. 

HOSEA XIII. 14. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

Sn^^/:: Q^S« biXlZ: T/:2 I win ransom them from the 

V r • ••:•.• • ,. - • power ot the grave ; I will re- 

m'a ^^^t"" ^n^. t^?^?^ ^^^^ them from death: O 

^'S^L^ ta.L^' lJ;*.^,-; *ta-'lk-*J* Jj.vi death, I will be thyplao^ues ; O 

^na: nn b^^^ ^nt^p^ % is^ ^^^^^^ ^ ^i^ ^e thy destruc- 

l^T^'^'C ^^^^' repentance shall be hid 
'"^ •• " from mine eyes. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. J 27 

The fact that the apostle Paul has quoted this passage, 
1 Cor. 15. o5y in connexion with his discussion of the resur- 
rection, undoubtedly gives it an a priori claim to be regard- 
ed as having reference, in the mind of the Spirit, to that 
event. Still it is obvious that the true character of the 
resurrection, as there taught, must govern the sense which, 
in that relation, is to be assigned to the words as uttered by 
the prophet. If Paul does not, in fact, in that chapter 
teach the doctrine o^ Xhe resurrection of the body which dies, 
as we shall endeavor to prove, then we cannot suppose that 
such a doctrine is to be elicited from the text before us. 
The leading idea which it evidently conveys is that of a sig- 
nal triumph to be attained over death and hell (bii<U) Sheol, 
Hades — not the grave), amounting, in fact, to their ultimate 
abolition, according as it is elsewhere said, Rev. 20. 14, 
** And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire and brim- 
stone." All this ma}' be very readily conceded as the result 
of the redemption-work of Jesus Christ, '* who hath abol- 
ished death and brought life and immortality to light," and 
the resurrection of the righteous dead, in the true import of 
that term, be regarded as the demonstration of this triumph, 
while at the same time nothing may be farther from the 
real teaching of the Old or New Testament writers, than the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; and as this is the 
only point in the debate, it cannot be necessary to go into a 
critical examination of the passage. But as the form of the 
quotation, as made by the apostle, varies essentially both 
from the Heb. and Sept., and is almost literally conformed 
to the Syriac version, it may not be amiss to introduce in 
this connexion the remarks of Bp. Horsley, which will be 
found to be of special value on the general subject of the 
apostolic quotations from the Old Testament. " We are not 
to assume that the apostle cites a particular passage; and 
then to conclude that the apostle's supposed citation gives 
the only true sense of the Hebrew words, which it is our 
bounden duty, by all contrivances and exploits of criticism, 



128 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

to bring out of them. We should first inquire whether he 
cites or no; and if it should appear that he cites, it might 
still be reasonable to inquire whether the general meaning 
of the prophecy might not be sufficient for his purpose ; or 
with what degree of accuracy it was necessary to his argu- 
ment, that he should represent the prophet's words. Now, 
upon the most mature consideration of the matter, I am per- 
suaded that the apostle's triumphant exclamation, *0 Death, 
where is thy sling? O Hell, where is thy victory?' is an 
allusion, indeed, t.o this text of Hosea ; an indirect allu- 
sion, but no citation of it. The prophecy, which the apostle 
cites as one which would receive its completion in the 
general resurrection at the last day, is a saying ' that is 
written,' which shall then be brought to pass; this prophecy 
is written in Is. 25. 8, and nowhere else. And this prophecy 
which he cites, he cites with precision. And it may be use- 
ful to observe, that he cites it not according to the version of 
the Lxx. He translates the Hebrew text verbatim, in con- 
tradiction to the version of the lxx ; for the version of the 
LXX, in this place, is so wretchedly and abominably efYone- 
ous, that the sense it gives is exactly the reverse of the sense 
of the Hebrew text. 

S *' The apostle, having cited this prophecy of * the swal- 
lowing up of Death in victory,' and looking forward to the 
great event which he mentions as the yet future completion 
of it, he breaks out in those words of triumph which allude 
to this text of Hosea. Death and Hell are personified and 
apostrophized, both by the prophet and by the apostle. The 
purport of the apostrophe, both with the prophet and with 
the apostle, is to set forth God's dominion over Death and 
Hell, and his merciful purpose of destroying both the one 
and the other. This is categorically asserted by the pro- 
phet ; it is indirectly asserted by the apostle, in the shape of 
an interrogation. But in the prophet we have no mention 
of the sting with which Death is armed in the apostle's 
imagery; none of victory by the name of victory. On the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 129 

Other hand, in the apostle we have no mention of the pesti- 
lence and the burning plague, to be inflicted, according to 
the prophet, upon Death and Hell by God the Saviour. It 
may seem that the resemblance between the words of the 
apostle and the text of the prophet, upon this comparison, 
turns out. to be so very general as to leave room to doubt 
whether so much as an allusion was intended. But I am 
persuaded that an allusion was intended ; and my persuasion 
rests principally upon these two reasons : — 

'* 1. It is hardly to be conceived that, when the apostle^s 
discourse led him to refer to prophecies of the final aboli- 
tion of Death and Hell, this passage of the prophet Hosea 
should not come to his mind, which, for the boldness of its 
imagery, is far more striking than the passage of Isaiah 
which he cites ; which for that very reason perhaps he cites 
in preference, as being more explicit and perspicuous, be- 
cause less figured and adorned. 

" 2. Notwithstanding that a general resemblance only is 
to be found between the apostle's words and the general 
text, these words of the apostle are an exact literal render- 
ing in Greek of the Syriac version of that Hebrew text ; 
except that the words ' sting ' and * victory ' in the apostle 
have changed places. 

*' I cannot close this long note without briefly animad- 
verting on the plausible but fallacious doctrine of sanction, 
supposed to be given to the ancient versions of the Old 
Testament by the citation of particular passages of them in 
the New. And with respect to the Septuagint in particular, 
in behalf of which this sanction is most frequently pleaded, 
I observe that what is generally assumed on this subject 
is not true, viz., that the citations of texts of the Old Tes- 
tament in the New are always from this version. This as- 
sumption, I say, is not invariably true. The instances in 
which it fails are many. I have mentioned one very remark- 
able instance, and I could produce many more. 

*' I say, secondly, upon the same principle that a citation 



130 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

of the Old Testament by the inspired writers of the New, 
according to that particular version, is to be taken as a 
sanction of the version ; (upon the same principle) the cita- 
tion of a text not in the words of the lxx, more particularly 
in words that give a sense directly opposite to their sense, 
is a reprobation of the version. And since the inspired 
writers of the New Testament cite some passages according 
to the LXX, and some not according to the lxx, it fol- 
lows, that they sanction the version in some passages and 
reprobate the version in others. And neither the sanction 
nor the reprobation must be extended farther than to the 
particular texts cited. In the texts not cited, we have no 
judgment of the inspired writers of the New Testament 
upon the merits of the version. And as these uncited texts 
make certainly the far greater part of the whole book, I shall 
contradict no apostle or inspired writer, if I assert, as I do, 
of the Septuagint generally, that, aiicient, respectable, use- 
ful, and valuable as it is, and in many parts excellent, it is 
not, upon the whole, to be put in competition, for verbal 
accuracy, either with our own public translation or with 
the Vulgate. 

*' But, thirdly, I go further. I contend, that even with 
respect to the particular passages cited in the New Testa- 
ment, according to the version of the lxx, we are not al- 
ways to conclude, that the citation implies the citer's appro- 
bation of the verbal accuracy of the translation, even in the 
instance of the passage cited. This will indeed be a just 
conclusion, if a faithful representation of the phraseology of 
the original be requisite for the purpose of the citer. But 
if the general meaning of the passage cited is sufficient, 
which, for the most part, is the case, no sanction of any 
thing more than the general meaning, which is often very 
inadequately given in a very loose, and, with respect to 
words, even an erroneous translation, can be inferred from 
the citation. For it certainly became the wisdom of the 
apostles to cite the Old Testament according to the versions 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 131 

most in use and credit in their time, however defective in 
verbal accuracy, provided they found in them the general 
meaning, except indeed in those few cases in which their 
argument turned upon the wording of the original. It was 
no part of the duty of holy apostles and inspired preachers, 
to edit or correct translations of the Old Testament, or to 
give critical notes upon the extant versions." Comment, on 
Hos. in loc. 

Dan. XII. 2. 

HEB. ENG. VERS. 

^£y"ri''ij'llS ^jtd^/i d^S'^il Andmany of them that sleep 

^^ V-- "l'Ll * ""* ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ the earth shall 

n^l^^ Uyy$ ^^l^ m^K ^ii^p^ awake ; some to everlasting 

\ hVs> "^hWk^-V r^sr»^>-V ^i^^) ^"^ some to shame and 

♦Dp^:^ P^^'f ^^<'.|!? everlasting contempt. 

This brief passage contains, more emphatically perhaps 
than any other in the Old Testament, the germ of the resur- 
rection doctrine. It is incessantly referred to by the Rab- 
binical writers w^ho have treated of the subject, and has 
exercised a controlling influence on the literal statements of 
Christ and the apostles. It becomes, therefore, a matter of 
the utmost moment to determine, if possible, its true sense. 
The question how far it implies the idea of a corporeal re- 
surrection will naturally be resolved by the results of such an 
inquiry. The difficulties are confessedly great which attend 
a proper solution, and the issue may still leave some points 
more or less doubtful. 

No progress can be made in the investigation without 
first fixing, by careful exegesis, the exact import of the text. 
The following may serve as a literal version : '* And many 
of the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake — these 
to everlasting life, and those to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." But this still comes short of presenting to the 
English reader the precise shade of meaning conveyed by the 
words, as it does not express the true nature of the distinc- 
tion in the lot of the two classes which we think to be inti- 



182 THE DOCTRINE OF TJIE RESURRECTION. 

mated by tlie original. According to the established ren- 
dering both classes awake, and this distinction is consequent 
upon their awaking. The one class awakes to life and 
honor, the other to shame and dishonor. It is greatly to be 
questioned whether this is sustained by the true construc- 
tion of the Hebrew. That, we believe, makes the distinc- 
tion to consist in the lot of those who awaJcc to life, and 
those who do not awake at all. In the outset all Sre repre- 
sented as sleeping : out of these all a portion (0*^2*] many) 
awake ; the rest remain unawakened. This is the ground 
of the distinction. *' These," i. e. the awakened, awake to 
everlasting life; '* and those," i. e. the other class, who 
abide in the dust, who do not awake at all, remain subject 
to the shame and ignominy of that death, whatever it was, 
which marked their previous condition. The grounds of 
this construction are the following : 

(1.) The ** awaking" is evidently predicated of the 
** many," and not of the whole. It will be observed that 
the phrase is not *' many " in the absolute sense, which might 
perhaps be understood of all, but ** many of," which plainly 
conveys the idea of restriction, distinguishing a part from the 
whole. *' I most fully acknowledge," says Dr. fiody ( Treat, 
of Resurrect, of the Body, p. 230), *' that the word many 
makes this text extremely difficult. I know what expositors 
say, but I am not satisfied with any thing I have hitherto 
met with. Some tell us that many is sometimes used in the 
Scriptures to signify all, but this does not clear the dif- 
ficulty ; for there is a great difference between many and 
inany of. All they that sleep in the dust are many ; but 
many q/'them that sleep in the dust cannot be said to be all 
they that sleep in the dust. Many of does plainly except 
some." This we must regard as conclusive. The *' awak 
ing " is affirmed of the " many," and not of the whole. 

(2.) The true sense of the original n^xi — Ii*a5< is not 
some — and some, bat these — and those, referring respectively 
to subjects previously indicated. By the former erroneous 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 133 

rendering a distinction is constituted between two classes 
of those icTio are awakened; by the latter, between those who 
are and those who are not awakened. The difference is 
all important, and though the force of the criticism can be 
fully appreciated only by those who are conversant with the 
Hebrew, yet the common reader can scarcely fail to per- 
ceive, from the following examples, how strongly our inter- 
pretation is fortified by current usage when these words are 
taken distributively : Josh. 8. 22, * So they were in the 
midst of Israel — nt^ Ji^xi JiJ^ T\\^ these on this side, and 
those on that side.' 2 Sam. 2. 13, ' And they sat down, the 
one (n|x these) on the one side of the pool, and the other 
(n^.N^ and those) on the other side of the pool.' 1 Kings 20. 
29, * And they pitched one over against the other (n^b iiibx 
ni?X these over against those) seven days.' In one single 
instance, and only one, in the whole Bible, do we find these 
terms used in a sense which affords countenance to the ren- 
dering in question. This is in Ps. 20. 7, * Some (n|!j{ these) 
trust in chariots, and some (n^5<^ and those) in horses : but 
we will remember,' &c. The whole weight of authority is 
evidently in favor of the construction we have given to the 
phrase. The first denotes those who awoke, the second 
those who remained asleep. Life and glory crowned the 
first, shame and execration clothed the last. Thus under- 
stood, the passage yields a clear and consistent sense, in 
which no violence is done to the phrase, many of them that 
sleep. Its restricted import is preserved, which is otherwise 

lost. 

(3.) The usage which obtains in regard to the Hebrew 
term y^P or VpJ^ awake, confirms this view. This term, in 
such a connexion, does not well admit of being taken in any 
but a o-ood sense. The Psalmist says of himself, Ps. 17. 
15, * As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I 
shall be satisfied, when I awake (y'^pjns), with thy likeness." 
But while it appropriately expresses the awaking of the 

7 



134 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

righteous to a beatified slate, it is undoubtedly contrary to 
the genius of the word to apply it to any change or transi- 
tion in the state of the wicked. 

As the result of the whole, then, we give the following 
as the correct explication of the passage, which will at once 
afford an answer to the objection, that the same thing — viz. 
awaking — is predicated of both classes : ** And many of the 
sleepers of the dust shall awake : these (the awakened) 
(shall be) to everlasting life ; and those (the unawakened) 
(shall be) to shame and everlasting contempt." This we 
have learned, since first adopting this view, is the interpreta- 
tion suggested by some of the Jewish school, and is un- 
doubtedly very ancient. Aben Ezra, in his commentary on 
this chapter, quotes Rabbi Saadias Gaon as declaring that 
"those who awake shall be (appointed) to everlasting life, 
and those who awake not shall be (doomed) to shame and 
everlasting contempt.'^ The words of Gaon himself are, 
that " this is the resuscitation of the dead of Israel, whose 
lot is to eternal life, and those who shall not awake are the 
forsakers- of Jehovah," 6lc.* 

Still the question recurs. What kind of a resurrection is 
that here announced, and to what time is it to be referred ? 
The core of the difficulty lies in these two points, of which 
the solution of the last must afford the clew to that of the 
first. The evidence, even to a cursory view of the context, 
would seem to indicate pretty clearly that the period referred 
to can scarcely be that of '' the end of the world," as that 
phrase is usually apprehended, for the sequel obviously an- 
nounces an extended order of events stretching onwards 
through a long lapse of centuries to the time, whatever that 



* For these latter remarks I am indebted to an article in the " Biblical 
Repertory" for July, 1844, containing a review of my " Valley of Vision," 
from which, by the way, I may here observe, that I have transferred, in 
somewhat altered form, a considerable portion of the above exegesis. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 135 

be, when Daniel himself is to ^' stand up in his lot at the 
end of the days.'' It is, moreover, distinctly announced 
that this epoch of resuscitation is to be closely connected 
with a period of distinguished trouble, when Michael the 
great prince is to stand up for Daniel's people, and as the 
same language occurs in the description of this trouble with 
that which is applied to the calamities experienced at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem — viz. that there never had been and 
never would be a scene of equal distress — it seems fair to 
infer that the woes of that period are at least included in 
the present prediction. But we have, if we mistake not, 
adduced evidence in another chapter of this work, in which 
we have treated of the Judgment in connexion with the 
Resurrection, that our Lord's predictions in the 24th and 
25th of Matthew do in fact embrace a vastly prolonged pe- 
riod, commencing with the signal manifestation of his king- 
dom at the overthrow of Jerusalem, and reaching forward 
to what is emphatically termed *'the end," — or the great 
consummation, when his kingdom shall be universally estab- 
lished. On the same grounds, therefore, on which that 
construction is established, we may regard the present text 
as spreading its announcement over the like extent of time, 
though still having a more special reference to events that 
should distinguish the commencing jjeriod of that great era 
to which they pertained. Conceiving then that this predic- 
tion of Daniel ushers in that new dispensation which was 
to be opened by the Messiah at his death and resurrection, 
and which began more signally to verify itself at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, we recognize an incipient fulfilment 
of this oracle, not only in the several individual instances 
of resuscitation of the dead recorded in the gospels, but 
more especially in that remarkable display of resurrection- 
power which was put forth upon the **many bodies of the 
saints that slept, which arose, and came out of their graves 
after his resurrection." So far then the wo^rds of the pro-? 



136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

phet may be construed as having respect to a literal resur- 
rection. But this we regard as, in the main, a mere out- 
ward and sensible adumbration of a far more glorious work 
of moral quickening which was to be the result of Christ's 
accomplished redemption in behalf of his people, and in 
which this prediction was to receive its more complete and 
signal fulfilment. From age to age this spiritual vivifica- 
tion was to proceed in connexion with the 'judgment of 
the great day,', the period of the &^sri tbis? the world to come^ 
that period which in the Jewish Christology was identical 
with the reigning and judging supremacy of the Messiah.* 
The testimonies from the Rabbinical school in support 
of this view are innumerable. *' In the world to come," 
says the Sohar, fol. 81, *Uhe holy blessed God will vivify 
the dead and raise them from their dust, so that they shall 
be no more of an earthly structure, as they were before, 
having been created from the dust, a thing not at all dura- 
ble. But in this hour (day) they shall be raised from the 
dust of which they were composed, that they may subsist as 
structures firm and durable." So also the Midrash MisJile, 
fol. 67: *' Seven things were created before the world was 
made : to wit, the throne of glory, as it is said, Ps. 93. 2, 
' Thy throne is established of old ; thou art from everlast- 

* " It was the opinion of the Jews/' says Lightfoot, '' that there 
should be a resurrection in the days of the Messias. And this was so fa.i 
the opinion of the nation, that they understood the term, ' the world to 
come,' of the state of glory, and yet of the state of the Messias; as shall 
be showed, when we meet with that phrase. Now there was a resurrection 
in the days of the Messias, accordingly, not only of those that have been 
named, but also of divers saints, whose graves were opened and bodies 
arose. And if the words that we have on hand (John 5. 25), be appHed 
to the raising of the dead in a bodily sense, they may most properly be 
pointed to that resurrection which was so parallel to the expectation of 
the Je>vs ; and Christ, ascribing such a matter to himself, doth prove 
liimself tp be the Messias, even they and their own opinion being 
judges." 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 137 

ing;' afterwards the Messiah, as it is said, Ps. 72. 17, * His 
name shall endure for ever : his name shall be continued 
as long as the sun : and men shall be blessed in him, and 
all nations shall call him blessed.' But why is his name 
called ]li"^ ? — because he shall hereafter raise the sleepers in 
the dust." 4 Esd. 2. 10, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31, *' These things 
saith the Lord to Esdras, Declare to my people that I will 
give to them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was about to 
give to Israel. Now a kingdom is prepared for you : watch ! 
Mother, embrace thy sons ; bring them up with joy. And 
I will raise up the dead from their places, and from their 
monuments will I bring them forth, for I have made known 
my name in Israel. Delight thyself, mother, with thy sons, 
because I will deliver thee, saith the Lord. Remember thy 
sleeping sons, for I will bring them out of the sides of the 
earth, and will show mercy to them." 

It would be abundantly easy to accumulate a mass of 
irrefragable testimony from the writings of the Rabbins, 
that the Resurrection and the Judgment were th^ two great 
features of the ** world to come," or the Messianic dispen- 
sation; R. Saadias {Emunoth^ c. 7. Had. 7) maintains, ac- 
cording to Pococke, that ** the resurrection is to take place 
during the Messiah's reign on the earth, and so that the pro- 
mise of the dead Israelites being brought out of their sepul- 
chres is to be accomplished fiitJi Dbirs in this world (or age), 
and that we are not to suppose that it pertains to another ; 
consequently, that the prediction of Daniel respecting the 
many that sleep in the dust, with various other Scriptures, 
is to be fulfilled in the time of salvation, a phrase entirely 
equivalent to the days of the MessiahJ^ So it is said in 
IWath Adam, fol. 105, that the day of judgment w^ill com- 
mence, ^^ sub initium dierum resurrectionis, at the hegin^ 
ning of the days of the resurrection,^^ (Pococke, Porta 
Mosis, Not, Miscel. p. 166.) 

It is during the lapse of this great Messianic day that the 
awakening from the dust, of which Daniel speaks, was un- 



VS8 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

derstood as destined to occur. It is indeed the prevalent 
impression of the Jews, that the resurrection there spoken of 
pertains more especially to their own nation ; but as we have 
in the New Testament an inspired exposition of the great 
doctrines of life and death, of resurrection and judgment, 
we are, of course, freed from the obligation of abiding by 
their interpretation on a point in which their national pre- 
judices might be expected to warp their opinions. From 
the teachings of our Lord and his apostles we learn that all 
men are by nature dead in trespasses and in sins; and that 
the effect of the Gospel, attended by the energetic influence 
of the Holy Spirit, is to quicken its recipients into a new 
and divine life, which, as it is a virtual resurrection while 
they are yet in the body, issues by necessary consequence 
in that consummated resurrection which accrues to them 
upon their leaving the body. The two ideas run essentially 
into each other, and this is, in fact, inevitable from the drift 
of our Saviour's declaration : *' I am the resurrection and 
the life ; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, 
shall never die." 

While then we cannot question that the words before us 
do truly refer to the cases of bodily resurrection recorded 
by the evangelists, we are at the same time strong in the 
persuasion, that they possess a vastly grander scope, and find 
their fulfilment in that sublime career of moral regeneration 
which forms so much of the history of Christianity from age 
to age. And it is doubtless to this text that we are to trace 
the origin of the phraseology so common in the New Tes- 
tament, by which the resurrection is represented as a resur- 
rection from among or out of the dead — avaazaaig ix vexgwv. 
This usage is very remarkable, and must be founded upon 
some sufficient reason. The simple and natural form of the 
expression, answering to the English phrase * resurrection of 
the dead,' is avaaxacng tmp vekqojv^ which occasionally occurs, 
as for instance. Mat. 22. 31, ** But concerning the resurrec- 



THE SCRIPTUKAL ARGUMENT. 139 

tion of the dead {avaorTacng twv vsxgcjv), have ye not read," 
&c. The phrase is here given in more general form, be- 
cause intended to include the resurrection of the patriarchs, 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who lived and died prior to the 
utterance of this prophecy of Daniel, and whose case, there- 
fore, could not so well come within the range of its terms. In 
the parallel context in Luke, however, where more precise 
ideas are intended to be conveyed, the other form of the ex- 
pression occurs : *^ The sons of this world (or age) marry and 
are given in marriage ; but they who are accounted worthy 
to obtain that world, and the resurrection that zs from the 
dead (t% upaaTacrscog Trjg Ik vsxgcav), neither marry nor are 
given in marriage,'^ &c. We have in these citations the two 
expressions, where they manifestly are not synonymous, and 
could not be exchanged without destroying the force of the 
reasoning. The one intimates, in the most general terms, 
a resurrection of the dead; the other a more special resur- 
rection fro?n out of the dead. There must assuredly be 
some reason for this peculiar phraseology, and to what can 
it more probably be referred than to the diction of Daniel in 
the passage before us? Thus, also. Acts 4. 2: *^ Being 
grieved that they taught the people, and preached through 
Jesus the resurrection that is from the dead {ttiv avdajaair 
iriv EK v£x^c5r)," The double article, in addition to the pre- 
position ey., from out of denotes strongly the specialty 
adverted to. Acts 17. 31, 32, ^' He hath given assurance 
unto all, in that he hath raised him from the dead {uvaGTi'iaag 
avibviic rexgojv). And when they heard of the resurrection 
of dead ones {(ipdi(JT7](nv vsxgdip)^ some mocked." Here, as 
the persons addressed were Gentiles or Heathen, and who 
would naturally be offended by the seeming absurdity of any 
dead thino- being raised to life, the expression is quite gen- 
eral, and the article properly omitted. Phil. 3. 11, " If by 
any means I might attain unto the resurrection from out of 
the dead {eig ti]v iiavairiaaiv tojP vsxgair).^^ Here is obviously 
an allusion to a resurrection from among the dead, which 



140 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

was pre-eminently a privilege of some in contradistinction 
from others, and therefore expressed by the most limited 
form of the phrase.* 

Other passages illustrating the peculiarity in question 
might be adduced, but we think the evidence sufficient to 
sustain our suggestion, that we have here a i^sus loquendi 
in regard to the resurrection, which refers itself directly to 
the passage in Daniel that we are now considering; and if so, 
the proof we believe must be regarded as conclusive, that 
that passage, in its more legitimate and primary import, does 
not convey the idea of the resurrection of the body. If the 
prediction really finds its fulfilment in the resurrection taught 
in the New Testament, and if it can be shown, as we shall 
hope shortly to do, that this is a resurrection which is grad- 
ually taking place from age to age, and one in which the 
spiritual body developed at death is intimately related to 
the spiritual life implanted in regeneration, then we see not 
how to resist the conclusion that this ' awaking from the 
dead,' announced by Daniel, points mainly to a spiritual and 
not a corporeal resurrection.! 

* " What could he mean by ' attaining unto the resurrection of the 
dead/ which he evidently speaks of as something attainable in this life, — 
otherwise his modest notice, 'not as though I had already attained,* 
would be nonsense ; — \N\mt can he thus mean by attaining unto the re- 
surrection of the dead, but a state of complete regeneration, when all that 
was previously spiritually dead, — all that is the seat of man's inborn cor- 
ruptions, — is quickened with spiritual life, and formed anew by the Lord ? 
Thus his whole argument is consistent ; whereas to make him talk of 
striving to attain unto the resurrection of the dead, meaning, by the 
resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of dead bodies, which all (if 
any) are to experience, whether they strive for it or not, and which, 
strive as they will, they cannot bring on any sooner, is to make him talk 
in a strange manner indeed." — Noble's Appeal, p. 66. 

t We shall have occasion again to advert to this passage in a subse- 
quent page, where we present it in connexion with the judgment of the 
dead, small and great. Rev. 20. 12, to which, if we mistake not, it affords 
the only adequate clew. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 141 



CHAPTER V. 

The NeiD Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection, 

The train of investigation thus far pursued has, if we 
mistake not, conducted us to one important conclusion, viz., 
that the teachings of the Old Testament, so far as they throw 
light at all on the theme of human destiny in the world to 
come, do not go beyond the announcement of the simple 
fact of a future life. This doctrine was undoubtedly con- 
veyed, though in terms of comparative obscurity, in numer- 
ous passages of the law and the prophets. The sanctions of 
that economy were for the most part temporal, and in this 
respect it was designed that the Gospel should be immeas- 
urably in advance of the law. The clouds that hung over the 
grave were to be, in great measure, dispelled by the Sun of 
Righteousness, and the retributions of eternity distinctly pro- 
claimed. Still it must be admitted, as natural to suppose, 
that the doctrine declared by Christ on this subject would 
be in the main a fuller and clearer enunciation of the very 
doctrine so darkly intimated in the Jewish Scriptures ; or, in 
other words, that the fundamental truth which entered into 
his disclosures on this head would be that of the immortal- 
ity of man — that death was not a complete victory over life 
— that notwithstanding the triumph of the grave, that which 
constituted his real essential being survived the dissolution of 
the body, and subsisted forever in a state of happiness or 
misery in another icorld. This was the point on which the 
prior revelations were confessedly obscure, and this conse- 
quently would govern the character of his disclosures on 
this subject — this would form the burden of his teachijigs. 
His great mission, so far as this object was concerned, was 
to ** bring life and immortality to Yighi;'^ and though we 

7* 



142 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

are not to array any hypothetical assumptions against the 
clear evidence oi facts, as to the subject-matter of his com- 
munications, yet we are at liberty to have recourse to a priori 
considerations in fixing the principles on which language 
that is intrinsically doubtful is to be interpreted. 

The question then is a perfectly fair one, in what man- 
ner the Divine Teacher would he apt to promulgate to the 
Jews, and through them to the world, the grand doctrine of 
man's future existence. This question becomes doubly 
proper and urgent if we may venture to suppose ourselves 
to have attained, by scientific discovery apart from revela- 
tion, a view of the subject which commands assent, but 
which is at the same time apparently in conflict with the 
literal statements of the Scriptures ; for the case then be- 
comes similar to that of geology, where a reason is impera- 
tively required for the seeming discrepancy between the 
letter of the sacred record and the ascertained facts of 
science. 

In determining then the point before us, we must obvi- 
ously transport ourselves back in idea to the period when 
the Divine Revealer appeared and opened his lips upon the 
sublime theme. We are to put our minds as far as possible into 
the posture of the minds of that generation, and judge from 
that stand-point in what manner the instructions of Christ 
in regard to the future life would be likely to be communi- 
cated. We must bear in mind that their own Scriptures 
contained very little of a definite character on the subject, 
and that the speculations of the heathen philosophers re- 
specting it were little better than mere random guesses. 
So far as they taught any thing relative to the future mode 
of existence, with the exception perhaps of Plato, it was the 
existence of the soul as mere disembodied intellect — as the 
abstract power of thought — apart from any kind of corporeity, 
wheyier material or spiritual. But now the time had come 
for the promulgation of new and clearer views on the sub- 
ject : and who can doubt that this would be done on the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 143 

part of infinite Wisdom with a fitting reference to the mental 
state and conditions — or, in one word, to the receptivity — of 
those that were to be taught ? The great truth to be au- 
thoritatively announced was, that death was not the extinc- 
tion of beiag — that there was that in man which survived 
the dissolution of his mortal frame. In making this an- 
nouncement we can indeed easily conceive that our Lord 
might have laid open all the arcana of our mental and phys- 
ical structure, and have shown how the body and the soul 
were connected with each other, and how the future life 
was developed by a necessary law upon the cessation of the 
present; just as Vv^e can conceive that the true formation of 
the earth and the solar system might have been made known 
to Moses and faithfully and scientifically described in his 
pages. But this would have be-en obviously at variance 
with the analogy of the divine proceeding in the general 
course of Providence, which is so ordered as to throw the 
human mind on its own resources in eliciting the constitu- 
tion of the universe. The revelations of his word have 
mainly a jRoral bearing, and the presumption would doubt- 
less be, in the present case, that the doctrine would be con- 
veyed not so much in the terms of scientific verity — in the 
technical phrase of a strict and accurate physiology — as in 
a popular diction that would declare the main fact in an in- 
telligible way, and clothe it with the highest practical effi- 
ciency, while at the same time it fell short of scientific ex- 
actness. He might use language more or less metaphorical 
—he might express himself in terms borrowed from familiar 
phenomena — and yet the grand truth be enunciated with a 
distinctness far exceeding that of the Old Testament writers, 
and calculated to produce a very vivid impression upon the 
minds of his hearers, JJbw far this was actually the case, 
remains to be seen. 



144 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 



CHAPTER VI. 

Origin and import of the word ^Resurrection' as used in the 
New Testament, 

Upon recurring to the sacred page we find our Lord, in 
the utterance of this doctrine, making use for the most part 
of the term avddTainq, rendered resurrection, a term the true 
explication of which is obviously of the first importance in 
this discussion. The verbal root from which it comes is 
avhrrj^i, compounded of avd and tW^^i, of which the for- 
mer denotes, according to Schleusner, in composition, (1,) 
upwards; (2,) again; (3,) separation; (4,) emphasis; (5,) 
adds no meaning at all. The verb Xairi^i simply means to 
standy or actively to cause to stand, i. e. to raise, to raise up, 
and the corresponding substantive is (TTann;, standing. It does 
not appear, however, from New Testament usage, that the 
idea of standing again, or rising again, is generally con- 
veyed by the verb tplajri^i, so that the true force of the pre- 
position is not again, but up, upwards. The action of stand- 
ing up, i. e. rising from a recumbent or sitting posture, is 
expressed bv this word, without any reference to a previous 
position or a repetition of the act. Thus Mat. 9. 9, *'And 
he arose (avoKTtag) and followed him." Ch. 22. 24, **And 
raise up (uratnTjcrsi) seed to his brother.'' Mark 3. 26, "And 
if Satan jnse up {ccviaTri) against himself" Ch. 10. 1, '*And 
he arose (otvaarag) from thence." Acts 7. 18, " Till another 
king arose (avsatT))" In these passages, and numerous others 
that might be mentioned, there is no implication of the 
sense of again. At the same time, as the living of the soul 
or spirit after death is in one sense a living again, though 
in a new form, the word may properly be understood as in- 
volving that idea. Yet, let it not be forgotten, it is the living 
again of the spiritual and not of the corporeal part of our 
nature. In relation to the subject before us, the term 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 14^ 

is evidently metaphorical, and applied from the fact that 
living things, especially of the animal kingdom, generally 
stand more or less erect, while those that are deadfall down 
and lie prostrate. Hence, a very natural term to express liv- 
ing again, would be o.vddTaaig, resurgence, resurrection, i. e. 
re-rising. The phrase, it is true, is drawn from corporeal 
objects, and suggests, at first blush, what we may term a 
corporeal lAe^di', but it does not appear that anymore is ne- 
cessarily included in the term, in this connexion, than the 
simple sense of reviviscence, without any reference to the 
rising again of the defunct body. This will be seen to be 
a conclusion of great moment in relation to the genuine im- 
port of the word upon which the doctrine of the resurrection 
of the body mainly depends. It remains to confirm it by an 
appeal to actual usage, and to show that the position is impreg- 
nable, that the prevailing sense of resurrection in the New 
Testament is simply that o{ future existence, the future state 
or immortality. The person — the sentient intelligent being — 
who now yields to the universal sentence, and appears to be- 
come extinct, shall again be restored to life by entering 
immediately upon another sphere of existence. This exist- 
ence will indeed be in a body, but it will be a spiritual 
body, i. e. some exceedingly refined and ethereal substance, 
V!\i\i\N\\\Q\i\\\Q vital principle is]connected, but of the nature 
of which we are ignorant, and which we denominate body, from 
the inadequacy of language to afford any more fitting term. 
Another term employed in the enunciation of the doc- 
trine of the resurrection is i/dgcj, to raise, with its deri- 
vative sysgaig, raising. The latter, how^ever, occurs but once 
in the New Testament, Mat. 27. 53, where it is applied to 
the resurrection of Christ. The leading idea conveyed by 
this word is undoubtedly that oi raising in r physical sense, 
and if we had no reason, from other sources, for supposing 
that the resurrection implied any thing but the resurrection 
of the body, this would unquestionably be the import which 
we should naturally assign to it when used in reference to 
that subject. But in this, as in all other cases, the sense of 



146 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the term must he governed hy the truth of the doctrine, so far 
as it is possible to ascertain it on satisfactory grounds ; and 
this is the object of our present investigation. The import 
of the various terms will come under review in our citation 
of particular passages. Upon this we shall enter, after 
giving the following extract from Locke's Letters to Stilling- 
fleet, Bishop of Worcester, who had assailed certain passages 
of the ** Essay on the Understanding,'' as undermining the 
Scriptural doctrine of the resurrection. 

** The resurrection of the dead I acknowledge to be an 
article of the Christian faith : but that the resurrection of the 
same body, in your Lordship's sense of the same body, is an 
article of the Christian faith, is what, I confess, I do not yet 
know. In the New Testament (wherein I think are contained 
all the articles of the Christian faith) I find our Saviour and 
the apostles to preach the resurrection of the dead, and the 
resurrection from the dead, m many places: but I do not 
remember any place where the resurrection of the same body 
is so much as mentioned : nay, which is very remarkable in 
the case, I do not remember, in any place of the New Testa- 
ment, (where the general resurrection of the last day is spoken 
of,) any such expression as the resurrection of the body, 
much less of the same hody.'^^ At the conclusion of a long 
series of powerful remarks, Mr. L. adds, " I must not part 
with this article of the resurrection, without returning my 
thanks to your Lordship for making me take notice of a 



* By a singular fortuity a copy of Locke's Letters to Stillingfleet has 
come into my hands, containing a number of autograph notes of the au- 
thor himsek", among which is the following, appended to the sentence 
which ends above with the word ' body.' " And it may seem to be not 
without some special reason, that where St. Paul's discourse was particu- 
larly concerning the body, and so should lead him to name it, yet when 
he speaks of the resurrection, he says, * you,' and not ' your bodies ; 1 Cor. 
6, 14, * And God hath raised up the Lord, and will raise up us by his 
own power.' " Quoting probably from memory he has substituted " you," 
and " your bodies," for " us," and " our bodies," but the bearing of the 
remark on the argument is the same in either case. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 147 

fault in my Essay. When I wrote that book, I took it for 
granted, as I doubt not but many others have done, that the 
Scriptures had mentioned, in express terms, the resurrection 
of the body : — but upon the occasion your Lordship has 
given me, in your last letter, to look a little more narrowly 
into what revelation has declared concerning the resurrec- 
tion, and finding no such express words in Scripture as that 
* the body shall rise, or be raised, or the resurrection of the 
body,' 1 shall, in the next edition of it, change these words 
of my book, * the dead bodies of men shall rise,' — into those 
of Scripture, 'the dead shall rise.' " Afterward, in strict 
agreement with our sentiments, which affirm that man rises 
w^ith a real substantial body, though not with a material body, 
Mr. Locke adds, '^ Not that I question that the dead shall 
be raised with bodies; but in matters of revelation I think 
it not only safest, but our duty, as far as any one delivers it 
for revelation, to keep close to the words of the Scripture ; un- 
less he will assume to himself the authority of one inspired, 
or make himself wiser than the Holy Spirit himself" 

The reader will not infer from this that there are no pas- 
sages in the Scriptures where the body is spoken of in con- 
nexion with the resurrection, but simply that the particular 
expression, * resurrection of the body,' is nowhere to be met 
with. This, however, does not of itself prove that the doc- 
trine is not taught by the sacred writers. This question is to 
be determined by a critical examination of the various texts 
in which the subject is referred to. 

Our object is now to ascertain whether the general usage 
of Scripture gives any countenance to the idea that the 
resurrection is simply the doctrine of the future life. And 
here we adduce, in the outset, the authority of a name 
which will perhaps weigh more with many of our readers 
than any thing we could oifer ourselves. Dr. Dwight in his, 
Sermon on the Resurrection, {Systemat. Theol. Serm. 64,) 
after observing that the subject treated by Paul, 1 Cor. 15, 
is the AnastasiSy or future existence of man, thus proceeds ; 



148 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

** This word Anastasis, is commonly, but often erroneously, 
rendered i^esurrection. So far as I have observed, it usually 
denotes our existence beyond the grave. Its original and 
literal meaning is, to stand up, or stand again. As standing 
is the appropriate posture of /2ye, consciousness, and activity, 
and lying down the appropriate posture of the dead, the un- 
conscious, and the inactive, this word is not unnaturally em- 
ployed to denote the future state of spirits, who are living, 
conscious, and active beings. Many passages of Scripture 
would have been rendered more intelligible, and the thoughts 
contained in them more just and impressive, had this word 
been translated agreeably to its real meaning. This obser- 
vation will be sufficiently illustrated by a recurrence to that 
remarkable passage which contains the dispute between our 
Saviour and the Sadducees. * Then came unto him,' says 
the evangelist, ' the Sadducees, who say there is no resur- 
rection (^^ dvai avacTTacrlv) ,^ that there is no future state, or 
no future existence of mankind. — They declare seven broth- 
ers to have married successively one wife, who survived them 
all. They then ask, * Whose wife shall she be in the resur- 
rection {iv T£ avdazadsi) ,^ in ihe future state ? Our Saviour 
answers, * In the resurrection,^ or, as it should be rendered, 
* In the future state, they neither marry nor are given in 
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as 
touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you by God?" — or, as it ought to be 
rendered, ' Have ye not read that which was spoken unto 
you by God concerning \he future existence of those who are 
dead, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, but 
of the living.' This passage [continues Dr. D wight], were 
we at any loss concerning the meaning of the word anasta- 
sis, determines it beyond dispute. The proof that there is 
an anastasis of the dead alleged by our Saviour, is the dec- 
laration of God to Moses, *I am the God of Abraham, of 
Isaac, and of Jacob; and the irresistible truth, that ' God 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 149 

is not the God of the dead, but of the living.' The conse- 
quence, as every one who reads the Bible knows, is, that 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living at the time when 
this declaration was made. Those who die, therefore, live 
after they are dead ; and this future life is the anastasis ; 
which is proved by our Saviour in this passage, and which is 
universally denoted hy this term throughout the New Testa- 
ment, Nothing is more evident than that Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, had not risen from the dead [as to their material 
bodies], and that the declaration concerning them is no 
proof of the resurrection [of the body]. But it is certain 
they are living beings ; and therefore this passage is a com- 
plete proof that mankind live after death.'' 

We close these remarks on the New Testament usage, in 
respect to terms implying the resurrection, by the followincr 
additional extract from Mr. Locke's Letter to Stillingfleet, 
quoted above : 

** He who reads with attention the discourse of St. Paul 
of the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15, will see that he plainly dis- 
tinguishes between the dead that shall be raised, and the 
bodies of the dead. For it is vsy,gol, dead, navTsg, all, ol, who 
which are the nominative cases to syelgovrai, are raised 
^(aoKoi7idT](TovTai, shall he quickened, iy^&riaovTai^ shall he 
raised, all along, and not (xwfxaTa, hodies, which one may with 
reason think would somewhere or other have been expressed, 
if all this had been said to propose it as an article of faith, 
that the very same bodies should be raised. The same 
manner of speaking the Spirit of God observes all through 

the New Testament, where it is said, ' raise the dead,' 

'quicken or make alive the dead,' — ^resurrection of the 
dead.' Mat. 22. 31. Mark 12. 26. 

*' Another evidence that St. Paul makes a distinction 
between the dead and the hodies of the dead, so that the dead 
in 1 Cor. 15 cannot be taken to stand precisely for the 
bodies of the dead, are these words of the apostle, v. 35 : 
' But some man will say, How are the dead raised, and with 



150 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

what bodies do they come?' which words * dead' and * they,' 
if supposed to stand precisely for the ' bodies of the dead,' 
the question will run thus, ' How are the dead bodies raised, 
and with what bodies do the dead bodies come V which seems 
to have no very agreeable sense. 

*^ This, therefore, being so, that the Spirit of God keeps 
so expressly to this phrase or form of speaking in the New 
Testament, of raising,' quickening,' ' rising,' ' resurrection,' 
&c., of the dead, when the resurrection at the last day is 
spoken of; and that the body is not mentioned but in the 
answer to this question, * With what bodies shall those dead, 
who are raised, come V so that by the dead cannot be pre- 
cisely meant the dead bodies; I do not see but a good 
Christian, who reads the Scriptures with an intention to be- 
lieve all that is there revealed to him concerning the resurrec- 
tion, may acquit himself of his duty without entering into 
the inquiry whether the dead shall have the very same bodies, 
or no; which sort of inquiry the apostle, by the appellation 
he here bestows on him that makes it, seems not much to 
encourage. Nor, if he shall think himself bound to deter- 
mine concerning the identity of the bodies of the dead 
raised at the last day, will he, by the remainder of St. Paul's 
answer, find the determination of the apostle to be much in 
tdiV ox o{ VciQ very same body, unless ih^ being told that the 
body sown * is not the body that shall be' — that the body 
raised is as different from that which was laid down, as the 
flesh of man is from the flesh of beasts, fishes, and birds, or 
as the sun, moon, and stars, are different from one another, 
or as different as a corruptible, weak, natural, mortal body, 
is from an incorruptible, powerful, spiritual, immortal body ; 
and lastly, as different as a body that is flesh and blood is 
from a body that is not flesh and blood — unless, I say, all this 
which is contained in St. Paul's words, can be supposed to 
be the way to deliver this as an article of faith, which every 
one is required to believe, viz., * That the dead should be 
raised in the very same bodies that they had before in this 
life.' " 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. J5l 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Resurrection of Christ, 

The resurrection of our Lord is in so many instances 
and in such a variety of ways brought into connexion with 
the resurrection of his people, especially as a pledge of 
theirs, that the consideration of this event is imperatively 
urged upon us in this part of our discussion. As he in his 
risen body stands at the head of his risen saints, so the fact 
of his resurrection occupies a like relation to the fact of 
theirs. The fact of itself of his emergence from the sepul- 
chre on the third day is of course admitted. The nature, 
circumstances, and bearings of the fact, are all with which 
we at present have to do. What light does this event throw 
upon the subject of the resurrection-body ? If he actually 
rose in his material body — in the self-same body in which 
he was crucified — it doubtless affords some countenance to 
the idea that his people are also to rise in like manner in the 
bodies which they laid down at death. Still, even on this 
ground, there are some circumstances which go to consti- 
tute a marked difference in the two cases; so that while his 
resurrection is to be regarded as a pledge, it cannot justly 
be viewed as ^pattern, of theirs. His body did not see cor- 
ruption, while theirs do. The words of David in the 16th 
Psalm, as we have already seen, were expressly interpreted, 
both by Peter and Paul, as prophetic of the buried body of 
Christ. This is a matter of great moment in the present 
relation, as the arguments in proof of the resurrection of 
the body generally concentrate themselves in the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. The advocates of that theory take their 
stand, for the most part, on the position, that there could be 
no true resurrection of Christ without the re-animation and 
resurrection of his material body ; and to deny this, is, in 
their view, the same as to deny his resurrection altogether. 



152 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The same thing is affirmed of our own resurrection. As it 
is only the body that is properly said to die, so it is only 
the body that can justly be said to be raised. Even grant- 
ing for a moment that this were true, still it is obvious 
that there is a heaven-wide difference between the case of a 
body that is resuscitated on the third day, and while its or- 
ganic integrity remains substantially unimpaired, and one 
that has been dissolved to dust and formed into countless 
new combinations, both vegetable and animal. 

But we shall attempt to show that the resurrection of 
the Saviour's material body is not incontestably taught in 
the language of the sacred narrative, and that, by adopting 
the opposite view, we do in fact bring the resurrection of 
Christ and that of his saints into the most perfect and beau- 
tiful analogy, and one that is utterly precluded by the com- 
mon hypothesis. Let it once be established that the body 
in which Jesus rose, and repeatedly appeared to his disci- 
ples during the space of forty days, was in fact a spiritual 
body, and it is obvious that the conformity of the members 
to the head becomes much more striking if we suppose that- 
they also are to enter immediately at death upon that state 
which is substantially the same with his. We say substan- 
tially ^ for there were evidently certain circumstances con- 
nected with our Lord's post-resurrection appearances, which 
are not to be expected to find a parallel in the case of the 
risen righteous. These will sufficiently disclose themselves 
in the progress of our remarks. 

(L) It is peculiarly worthy of note, that it is nowhere 
explicitly affirmed in the narrative of the evangelists, or any 
other part of the Scriptures, that the identical material body 
of Christ arose. The language that is used respecting that 
event, is such as to be capable of being consistently under- 
stood without the implication that his material body had any 
share in the resurrection or ascension. But if this be so, 
we do not perceive that that view can be justly held to be 
fairly made out ; for no language can adequately establish a 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 153 

fact of this nature, but that which cannot properly be under- 
stood in a different sense ; much less when equally clear ex- 
pressions can be adduced in support of the contrary — of 
which we shall have more to say in the sequel. 

(2.) It seems to be a fair presumption that the same 
body which rose also ascended. But the evidence is cer- 
tainly conclusive, that it was not a material body which as- 
cended to heaven. Now to consider the resurrection of the 
same body of Jesus as an example and pledge of that of the 
saints, and then to suppose that body not to ascend, falls 
little short of making their resurrection a blank, and com- 
pletely nullifying the argument of Paul in the opening of the 
15th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where he 
makes the resurrection of Christ the very groundwork of the 
spiritual and resurrection life of his people. 

(3.) The circumstances of his appearance to his disci- 
ples, in repeated instances, subsequent to his resurrection, 
are far more consistent with the idea of his possessing a 
spiritual body than the reverse. In John 20. ]9, we 
learn that ** at evening, on the first day of the week, when 
the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for 
fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and 
said. Peace be unto you." Luke 24. 36, 37, *' And as they 
thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them. But 
they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed they had 
seen a spirit." John 20. 26, '^ And after eight days, again 
his disciples were within, and Thomas with them ; then 
came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, 
and said. Peace be unto you." We have here the evidence 
of a body divested of the conditions of matter, at least as 
matter is commonly and philosophically defined. It is one 
endowed with the power of entering a room when the doors 
were closed, and all the ordinary avenues of access precluded. 
Such a body must have been spiritual ; nor is this conclu- 
sion vacated by the mention of certain circumstances that 
would seem to be more appropriate to a material structure, 



154 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

such as the disciples coming and holding him by the feet 
and worshipping him — his commanding them to handle him 
and see that it was he himself, and not a mere tangible 
spirit void of flesh and bones — his commanding Thomas to 
put his hands into his wounded side — and his eating a piece of 
broiled fish and an honey-comb. In all this we have no dif- 
ficulty in recognizing a miraculous adaptation of the visible 
phenomena to the outward senses of the disciples, who were 
to be fully assured of the great fact of their Lord's resur- 
rection, and of the identity of his person. But as the Sa- 
viour's true personality did not reside in his material body, 
any more than ours does in ours, so the proof of it could 
not really depend upon the exhibition of that body, although 
it be admitted that the requisite evidence could not reach 
their minds, while under the conditions of mortality, except 
through the medium of the outward senses. The "wisdom, 
and even the necessity, of this is apparent, from the effect 
which his sudden appearance among them produced, even 
while his form and aspect were predominantly human. 
They were, it is said, *' terrified and affVighted." How 
much would their terror have been increased had he ap- 
peared as a purely spiritual entity, were that possible, with- 
out at all disguising his unearthly being! As to the 
act of eating, it is certain that it could not be from any 
necessity of sustaining his body by material food. It was 
doubtless an optical act, like that of the three angels that 
came to Abraham — of whom one, by the way, was this same 
Jesus in his pre-incarnate state — and partook of the enter- 
tainment which he served up to them. The resurrection- 
state of Jesus was unquestionably the same with that of his 
glorious or Shekinah-state before he tabernacled in the flesh ; 
and if the one was consistent with his appearing to eat of 
the ordinary food of mortals, so doubtless was the other.* 

* Josephus, speaking of this incident in the history of Abraham (.T. 
A. B. I. c. 11), says, 66^ai> avroj ■nap?a'^ov IcxdidvTcov. they presented to him 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 155 

And when we consider the object to be attained by such an 
illusion, we see nothing inconsistent or unworthy the divine 
impersonation of truth in having recourse to it. A mira- 
cle, it is clear, must be admitted on any view. If his risen 
body was material, it must have been miraculously rendered 
spiritual when he suddenly appeared in a room closed and 
barred, and when he as suddenly vanished from sight. If 
it was spiritual, it must have been miraculously made to as- 
sume material attributes on the same occasion. Between 
these alternatives we are left to take our choice. For our- 
selves we do not hesitate a moment. Adopting the former 
view, we are compelled to the conclusion, that, as our Lord 
did not ascend in a material body, he must have put it off 
either at the ascension itself, or at some time previous dur- 
ing the forty days of his sojourning on earth, of the proof 
of which we have not the slightest trace except what is in- 
volved in the hypothesis itself On the other ground, the 
necessity of such a change is precluded. He rose in the 
same body in which he ascended, and in that body still lives 
as ** the resurrection and the life " to all his believing fol- 
lowers.* 

(4.) When Mary came at an early hour to the sepul- 

.i 

an appearance of eating. The term 66^a, show, appearance, seeming, is 
precisely the term which we think applicable to our Saviour's act on this 
occasion. 

^ " Prof MQller alleges that Christ arose from the tomb with the same 
material body which he had before his crucifixion. As a proof he addu- 
ces the fact that Christ ate, and that he showed Thomas the marks of his 
wounds. But very many proofs of an opposite kind may be alleged, the 
most important of which is his ascension into heaven. To the ascension 
belongs a glorified body, which had from the earth only that which is im- 
perishable. Might not a glorified one eat, while the food was transformed 
by an inward, higher, living energy into a superior element, or be chemi- 
cally evaporated ] And could not the wounds in the body be verified by 
marks in the resurrection-body ?" — Lange, in Germ. Select, Andover, 
1839. P. 288. 



156 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

chre, and looked down and saw only the two angelic mes- 
sengers sitting within, as she turned round she beheld Jesus, 
and mistook him for the gardener. He must, therefore, 
have been clothed, and in habiliments appropriate to a gar- 
dener. But whence were these clothes obtained, on the 
theory of the revival of the material body ? His ordinary 
garments had been distributed by lot among the Roman 
soldiers at his crucifixion. His grave-clothes were still 
lying in the sepulchre. If, then, the material body had 
emerged from the tomb, it must, we should suppose, have 
left all its sepulchral investments behind it. Whence then, 
we ask again, did the risen Saviour obtain the garments in 
which he appeared to Mary ? The instantaneous reply will 
no doubt be, that they were miraculously supplied ; nor 
would we intimate that a material body could not have been 
thus furnished from the wardrobe of Omnipotence, as well 
as any other. But we are still firm in the belief, that the 
impression is far more spontaneous that the whole was mi- 
raculous, the apparent body as well as the apparent garb. 
We have, we think, no evidence that the purely spiritual 
body of Christ, any more than any other spiritual body, 
could be seen by the natural eye. Consequently there was 
an absolute necessity that if the risen Saviour manifested 
himself at all, it should have been by the temporary assump- 
tion of a body cognizable by the natural senses. That there 
was something miraculous in his several appearances after his 
resurrection is to be inferred from Mark 16. 12 : '' After that, 
he appeared in another form {evhsQafiogqjtj) unto two of them, 
as they walked, and went into the country." This certainly 
implies a transformation of some kind, such as we may easily 
conceive to pertain to a spiritualized body. 

(5.) The evangelical narrative enforces the belief, that 
our Lord ascended to heaven first on the very day on which 
he rose from the dead, and subsequently in repeated instan- 
ces before the expiration of the forty days mentioned by 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 157 

Luke, Acts 1. 3.* The proof of this position may be thus 
smted : — 

a. The first appearance of the risen Saviour was to 
Mary Magdalen, of which a particular account is given by 
John only, ch. 20. 1 1-18. After mentioning her recognition 
of him, the writer proceeds : '^ Jesus saith unto her. Touch me 
not ; for I am not yet ascended to my Father ; but go to my 
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and 
your Father ; and to my God, and your God." For this prohi- 
bition here uttered it is difficult to assign a reason, unless it 
be that our Lord was just upon the point of ascending, and 
therefore no time was to be allowed for the expression of 
those endearments to which her rejoicing affection prompted 
her. The word is in the present tense {ava^alvo), I ascend, 
i. e. I am just about ascending), and is, as it strikes us, en- 
tirely inconsistent with the idea that he announces an ascen- 
sion which was to take place forty days afterwards. Why 
should so distant a removal to heaven be a reason for forbid- 
ding her now to touch him? Should we not suppose his 
language would rather have been, ' Touch me now, for if thou 
dost it not before my ascension, thou canst not hope to do 
it afterward ' — especially when we consider that, in the after- 
noon of that same day, he not only permitted, but required, 
the disciples to ' handle him., and see that it was he himself.' 
Is it replied to this that he was urgent to have his disciples 
immediately informed of his intended ascension at the end 
of forty days ? But what could be the motive for such haste 
on this matter, when he was to see them himself on the 
same day, and could communicate that information at any 
subsequent interview? The true solution is undoubtedly 
very different. Jesus would simply certify to his disciples 



* See on this subject a dissertation from the German of Kinkel in the 
*' Bibliotheca Sacra," Vol. I. No. 1., Feb. 1844, where the question re- 
specting the Ascension is argued with great abiHty. We are indebted to 
this essay for several of the ideas advanced in the present connexion. 

8 



158 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the reason why he did not at once personally manifest hira- 
self to them. '^ Announce to them that however pleasant 
to them and to me would be an instantaneous meeting, yet 
a stronger attraction draws me first to my Father. Every 
human feeling gives way before this. Touch me not: I 
cannot tarry with thee, nor with my brethren ; for I have 
not yet been with my Father, and there I must first be."^ 
Viewed in this light every thing is plain and easy. 

h. A recurrence to the previous history confirms this 
interpretation. Onr Lord had shortly before advertised his 
followers of his speedy removal from them to his Father^ 
and of his subsequent speedy return to them. John 16. 16, 
'^ A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little 
while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father ;" i. e. 
he was to go to the Father in the interval before their seeing 
him again. And again, when his disciples were surprised 
and confounded by his words, '^ Jesus said unto them, Do 
ye inquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, 
and ye shall not see me, and again, a little while, and ye 
shall see me?" He then continues: *^ Verily, verily, I 
say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the 
world shall rejoice ; and ye shall be sorrowful, but your 
sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in 
travail hath sorrow, because hex hour is come; but as soon 
as she is delivered of the child, she remember eth no more 
the anguish, because a man-child is born into the world. 
And ye now therefore have sorrow : but I will see you 
again, and your heart shall rejoice (;^«^rya£T«^), and your joy 
ao man taketh from you.'' Compare the prediction and the 
event. How sad and disconsolate was the little company ^t 
his death; how buoyant and rejoicing were they made by his 
re-appearance ! Their sorrow was to continue till 'Mie had 
been with his Father," and then was their joy to com- 
mence, as we learn was the case : '* Then were the disciples 
glad (p^aoTjaav) when they saw the Lord." Then it was, 
indeed, that ?l r Xiian-child was born into the world," accord- 



THE scnirTiiKAL arclment. 159 

ing to the prophetic word, ^^ Thou art my Son, this day have 
I begotten thee." 

c. Our Saviour's own words on the way to Emmaus 
warrant and enforce the same construction. *^ Then said 
he unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that 
the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suf- 
fered these things, and to enter into his glory f Here 
the verbs are both in the same tense (na&slv and utrild^uv) 
and should doubtless have been rendered in the same way 
— ' to have suffered ' and ^ to have entered.' Our transla- 
tors have varied the version, unquestionably, because they 
supposed the one to relate to the past, the other to the fu- 
ture. But the Scriptures plainly identify the ascension and 
the glorification of Christ, and if he was glorified on this 
day, he undoubtedly must have ascended on this day. 
There can be no question that our Lord uses at various 
times the word dolaQeod at ^ to he glorified^ as a synonym with 
the phrase, '^ going or coming to the Father." In John 13. 
32, after expressing his confidence that the Father would 
glorify him, he immediately subjoins, '* and he shall straight- 
way glorify him." And in John 17. 5, this confidence 
takes the form of a prayer : ^' Glorify thou me, O Father ;" 
where it is observable that the word vvv^ now, again occurs, 
evincing that Jesus beheld the event as just impending, and 
by no means to be deferred to so late a period as forty days 
after his death. As to his death itself being his glorifica- 
tion, from the moral dignity displayed in it, this is an opin- 
ion resting upon theological theory, and not upon Scripture 
declaration. The Scriptures imperatively demand that the 
ascension should be placed in the nearest possible proximity 
with the death of the Saviour. 

d. Intimately connected with this is the incident men- 
tioned by more than one of the evangelists as having oc- 
curred at the Saviour's interview with the disciples on the 
mountain in Galilee, where he had appointed to meet them 
after his resurrection. When there assembled, Mat. 28. 



160 THR DOCTRINE OF THE RKSURllECTION, 

18-20, we are told that '* Jesus came and spake unto them, 
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations," &c. This lan- 
guage, and his breathing upon them in token of his impart- 
ing to them the Holy Spirit, supposes a previous ascension. 
It is clear, from the general tenor both of the Old Testa- 
ment and the New, that it was only after our Lord's '^ as- 
cending upon high," that he was to '^ give gifts unto men," 
and we are elsewhere informed that *^ the Spirit was not yet 
given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. His now giv- 
ing the Spirit and clothing his disciples with their commis- 
sion, was a proof that he 2Das now glorified, and if so he 
must have ascended. The exercise of the authority and 
majesty which he here assumes as head of the mediatorial 
kingdom, necessarily supposes his actual investiture with 
the high prerogatives of that office. His resurrection and 
ascension were necessary to his receiving the seal of the 
Father's acceptance of the work which he had accomplished 
by his death. It is hardly possible, we think, to assign any 
reason why this consummating step should be delayed for 
forty days. 

e. The narrative of Luke, Acts 1. 1-3, lends additional 
confirmation to the view which supposes a plurality of as- 
censions : '^ The former treatise have I made, O Theophi- 
lus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the 
day in which he was taken up, after that he through the 
Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles 
whom he had chosen : to whom also he showed himself 
alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of 
them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to 
the kingdom of God." This is unquestionably a different 
event from that related in the Gospel of the same evangelist, 
Luke 24. 50-53, ^' And he led them out as far as to Beth- 
any ; and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it 
came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from 
them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped 



THC SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 161 

him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy ; and were 
continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. 
Amen.'^ Here is an entire omission of several of the lead- 
ing circumstances of the former ascension — the latter in 
point of time — which cannot well be accounted for on the 
assumption that he is describing the same event. Nothing 
is said of the cloud receiving him out of their sight — noth- 
ing of the two angels that appeared on the occasion — noth- 
ing respecting the question proposed to him by the apostles 
as to the time of restoring the kingdom to Israel. Yet why 
should these important items be omitted, if indeed the 
same ascension is intended ? But again, the place, as well 
as the attendant circumstances, is different. In the Gospel 
it is said to have been from Bethany, which was fifteen fur- 
longs from Jerusalem, while in the Acts it is, by clear infer- 
ence, the Mount of Olives, which was only about five. The 
distance, it is true, is not great, and the road to Bethany 
passes over the Mount of Olives; still the localities are not 
identical, nor is it practicable to reconcile the statements of 
the evangelist on this ground. Finally, we have only to re- 
cur to the passage in Acts to be convinced that the writer 
is describing an ascension entirely different from that which 
he had related in the Gospel. He first informs Theophiius 
that in the former treatise he had related all that Jesus be- 
gan both to do and to teach up to the day in which he was 
taken up into heaven, i. e. on the evening of the resurrec- 
tion, after he had given commandment to the disciples 
whom he had chosen. He then goes on to add, *' To whom 
also {olg yal) he showed himself alive after his passion, by 
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days." 
What can be inferred from the use o^ xal, also, in this con- 
nexion, but that besides and aftei^ that first appearance and 
ascension he had also manifested himself repeatedly during 
the forty days that elapsed prior to the ascension which he 
is now just about to record ? ** Thus we are compelled," to 
use the words of Kinkel, ^' on all sides confidently to affirm, 



162 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

that Christ arose to heaven several times, and indeed after 
each single appearance to his disciples, sometimes so that 
he only vanished from them, at others rising visibly before 
them, so that the ascension on the fortieth day appears par- 
ticularly important only because with it the regular appear- 
ances and communications to his disciples ceased." {Bibli- 
otJi. Sac, Feb., 1844, p. 173.) The inference from all this 
is obvious. If Christ first ascended to heaven immediately 
after his resurrection, and repeatedly in the forty days sub- 
sequent, he must have ascended in a spiritual body. If he 
ascended in a spiritual body, he must have arisen in a spir- 
itual body. Consequently, the phenomena indicating a ma- 
terial body to the senses of the disciples must have been 
miraculously assumed. In other words, they were mere ap- 
pearances. If this conclusion can be avoided — how? But 
our catalogue of proofs is not exhausted. 

(7.) The nature of our Saviour's priestly office required 
an immediate ascension after his death and resurrection. 
The Jewish High Priest, the grand type of Christ in this 
character, as soon as the he-goat was slain on the day of 
Atonement, immediately carried the blood into the most 
holy place and sprinkled it before the mercy-seat, and until 
he had done this was not regarded as having completed 
that solemnity. Accordingly, the apostle, Heb. 1. 3, com- 
bines these two parts of our Lord's priesthood : *' Having 
by himself purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of 
the Majesty on high;" adding a quotation from the second 
Psalm, which imports that he understood it of Christ's as- 
cension and exaltation : v. 4, 5, *' Being made so much 
higher than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained 
a more excellent name than they. For to which of the an- 
gels said he at any time. Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee ?" And we find that elsewhere the apostle 
applies the same quotation in the same sense : Heb. 5. 5, 
''Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; 
but he that said unto him, Thou an my Son, this day have 



Tilt: SCKlt'TUKAL ARGUMENT. 163 

I begotten thee;" and that this properly imports the day of 
Christ's resurrection is clear from Acts 13. 33 : *^ Having 
raised up Jesus from the dead, as it is written in the second 
Psalm, Thou art ray Son, this day have I begotten thee." 
These extracts all determine themselves to one point, viz., 
that the first ascension was on the same day with the resur- 
rection. 

(8.) The grand purpose for which the divine Redeemer 
assumed a body of flesh was accomplished when he expired 
upon the cross. TejilsaTai, it is^nished, was his dying ex- 
clamation. So also, just upon the eve of his crucifixion, 
John 17. 4, ^^I have finished the work which thou gavest 
me to do." Accordingly, when he had '^ accomplished his 
decease at Jerusalem," he entered at once into a new state 
and a new dispensation. He now came into that economy 
which was to be emphatically oftlie Spii^it. The agency 
of the Spirit is therefore prominent in the Scriptural ac- 
counts of the resurrection; *^ Declared to be the Son of 
God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the 
resurrection from the dead." The uses of a material body 
had now surceased for ever. He was now *' made a high 
priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after 
thepoi/jer of an endless lifeJ^ This life he entered upon 
at his resurrection from the grave, of which it was not 
possible that a spiritual body should be holden. The as- 
sumption of a fleshly body pertained not to the work of his 
glorification, but to that of his humiliation ; and, having 
once stooped to the work of humiliation, must he for ever 
remain under it 1 When he had once travailed through 
death, and conquered it, and him that had the power of it, 
— having once risen triumphantly from its dark domains — 
was it not fitting that he should completely lay aside every 
vestige of the chief memento of a state from which he had 
become so gloriously emancipated '? The work and th© 
kingdom of Christ were henceforward to be spiritual ; what 



164 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

need, then, of the resurrection of the animal or material 
body? 

But it is said that it must be deemed impossible to have 
assured the disciples of the naked fact of his resurrection but 
by the reanimation of the very body which had succumbed 
to death on the cross. To this we reply, as we have in 
effect replied already, that the great fact to be established 
was the living again of that person^ who had bowed his 
head upon Calvary, and *' given up the ghost." But as his 
true manhood, even during his earthly life, did not consist 
solely in his body, but in an inner principle to which the 
body was a mere adjunct, so the proof of the survival of his 
essential being after death was independent of the proof of 
the resurrection of the identical body which was deposited in 
the tomb of Joseph. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still 
living, as we hope shortly to prove, in spiritual bodies — if 
Moses and Elias appeared in such bodies at the transfigura- 
tion — if the saints universally go into the spiritual world in 
such bodies — why should not the Lord of life himself have 
immediately assumed a similar corporeity when he arose as 
the first fruits from among the dead? Was not his spiritual 
body himself? Was he not alive again ? And was not 
every purpose answered by the demonstration of this stu- 
pendous fact? Suppose the celestial body of Elijah had 
been made manifest to the senses subsequent to his trans- 
lation, would it not have afforded irrefragable evidence of the 
truth of his personal existence, notwithstanding the previous 
disappearance from human view of the gross material body? 
Would the reconstruction of his dispersed earthly tenement 
be requisite to certify the fact? Why then should not the 
same evidence establish the same fact in regard to Christ? 
The apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 9. 1, appeals to the fact of his 
having seen Jesus Christ the Lord, in proof of his apostleship. 
The force of his appeal depended upon his thus being made 
^ ioitness of the resurrection. But he certainly beheld not 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 165 

his material body. It was a spiritual appearance with 
which he was favored, and if such an appearance was a 
proof of the resurrection in his case, why not also in the 
case of the other apostles ? The argument strikes us as 
entirely conclusive. And how delightful and interesting 
the thought of so complete an identity of lot awaiting the 
Head and the members of the redeemed mystical body — 
that as we are planted in the likeness of his death, so we 
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection — that as he 
entered at once into a spiritual body and so abides, so shall 
we also at death but exchange our present bodies of vileness 
for our future bodies of glory fashioned like unto his ! 

We may admit indeed that the disciples supposed ih?X 
the body which they saw and handled was the veritable body 
of their crucified Lord, and that in their preaching the 
resurrection of Jesus they had no other idea than that of 
the reanimation of his body of flesh. Under the influence 
of those carnal apprehensions which they then cherished, it 
was scarcely to be expected that they should have come to 
any other conclusion. We have no grounds to imagine 
that without a miracle they could have come to a sudden 
recognition of a spiritual presence, when all the phenomena 
addressed themselves in such a manner to their senses as to 
beget the belief of a material substance. It is reasonable 
indeed to suppose, that, as they subsequently became more 
deeply instructed in the mysteries of the kingdom, and were 
able to penetrate more fully its spiritual character, they 
may have come by degrees to more correct views on this 
subject ; at any rate, we know no reason why the measure 
of their intelligence on this point should be the limit of 
ours. It is sometimes objected that an unsophisticated 
child, upon reading or hearing the evangelical narrative, 
would inevitably receive the impression that the body 
raised and manifested to the disciples was the literal mate- 
rial body of Christ. Granted. W^e admit the fact, while 
we deny the inference that would be drawn from it. The 

8* 



166 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

same inspired truth which is milk for babes, is at the same 
time strong meat for orrown men. Let each extract from it 
the pabulum which will sustain the soul. We live at a 
more advanced period of the Christian economy, and have 
the advantage of all those ulterior developments of its es- 
sential genius which were wanting to the first age of the 
church, and why should we close cur eyes to the brighter 
light that is shining around us for fear of seeing more than 
was seen in the earliest dawn of Christianity f 

Again, it is asked, If the material body did not rise, or 
was not the proper subject of the resurrection, what became 
of it? for it was not found in the sepulchre, neither did it 
see corruption. To this we reply, (1,) that the objection 
drawn from this source does not weigh exclusively against the 
view w^e are now advocating. On the common theory, some 
disposal is to be made of the neshly body subsequent to the 
resurrection, and prior to the ascension, for it is admitted 
that our risen Lord did not enter heaven in a body of flesh 
and bones. By the solution which may be offered on this 
score, whatever it maybe, we will agree to abide; main- 
taining, however, our previous position, that the ascension 
occurred on the day of the resurrection. On either view 
it must, we conceive, be maintained, that the body which 
hung upon the cross was miraculously dissolved or resolved 
into its primitive elements, like that of Elijah when he was 
translated ; and all the difference in the two cases is, that in 
the one this effect is to be supposed to have been wrought 
while it reposed in the sepulchre, and, in the other, after it 
emerged from it. As to the nature of the effect itself, it 
must be deemed substantially the same on the one theory as 
on the other. He died in a material body, he went into 
heaven in a spiritual body. Whether the transition from the 
one to the other took place sooner or later, the mode of it 
was undoubtedly the same, and the question, what became 
of the former when the latter was assumed, is one which 
presses upon the opposite view as much as upon purs. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 167 

But (2,) we would, in our tu«n, propose an inquiry. 
Was there not as much reason for a putting forth an act 
of omnipotence in the removal of the body of Jesus from 
the tomb, as there was for concealing the body of Moses 
from the Israelites, so that no man knew of his sepulchre? 
If the chosen people were in danger of worshipping the body 
of Moses, from their great reverence of his character, was 
there not far greater danger of Christ's body becoming a 
snare to his followers, and a real hinderance to a right appre- 
hension of the true nature of the resurrection, and of the 
spiritual character of his kingdom ? How could they have 
been adequately convinced of his being actually alive, of his 
ascension and glorification, while they could, at any time, 
by going there, have seen him, with the eye of sense, dead 
in the tomb? How much, moreover, would the ministry 
of the first preachers of the Gospel have been embarrassed 
in the proclamation of the great fact of the resurrection, if 
his body had remained visible, or the mode of its removal 
been commonly known ? Could the Jewish or Gentile gain- 
sayer be expected to yield credence to the declaration, that 
Jesus had risen from the dead and was still alive, when both 
his tomb and his body could at any time be pointed out as 
yet remaining with them ? 

We have thus, as we were able, presented the leading 
considerations on this profoundly interesting subject, and, 
from a view of the whole, know not what resistance lo offer 
to the conclusion, that our Saviour rose from the dead in a 
spiritual body, the same body in which he ascended to 
heaven. The prominent passages usually relied on in 
proof of the resurrection of the material body,, we have seen 
to be capable of a fair and unforced interpretation in, ftiyor 
of the opposite theory. This conclusion, thus sustained by 
a legitimate exegesis, is not to be vacated by our inability to 
define the precise relation that may be conceived to sub- 
sist between the former and the latter corporeity. Whether 
we are to recognize some hidden jllocess of sublimation by 



168 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

which the one was transmuted into the other, or whether the 
material fabric, which the divinity inhabited prior to the 
crucifixion, were resolved into its constituent elements, and 
thus wholly laid aside upon the development of the spiritual 
structure, we are not, perhaps, at present competent to de- 
termine, nor is it essential to the establishment of the main 
position. So also of the real state of our Lord's spirit, in the 
interval between his expiring on the cross and his resuscita- 
tion on the third day, as revelation has thrown no light upon 
it we are not called to be wise above what is written.* The 
question is as difficult of solution on the common theory as 
upon ours. The decision of it involves a deeper knowledge of 
the mysterious constitution of Christ's person than we now pos- 
sess — deeper, perhaps, than we may ever possess in this world 
But whatever the truth may be upon this point, we cannot 
conceive that any objection brought from it is sufficient to 
invalidate the grand result which we have reached respecting 
the nature of that body in which he appeared to his disci- 
ples at the tomb in Jerusalem — on the way to Emmaus — on 
the mountain in Galilee — and on the sacred summit of the 
Mount of Olives. Though miraculously disguised, from the 
exigency of the case, to the outward senses of his followers, 
yet we cannot help regarding it as the true model and exem- 
plar of the resurrection-bodies of the saints, when with them 
mortality shall be swallowed up of life. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Examination of Particular Passages. 

Prominent among the Scripture testimonies to the re- 
surrection of the dead, and the stronghold of those who 

* This remark is to be somewhat qualified, as will be seen by our ex- 
position of Mat. 27. 53, 54, where, we trust, we have found a clew to the 
true doctrine of the * descent into hell.' 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 169 

maintain the prevalent view, is the fifteenth chapter of Pairl's 
first epistle to the Corinthians. To this passage, therefore, 
shall we give our first attention, since, if this can be fairly 
interpreted in favor of the spiritual theory, we can antici- 
pate little difficulty in dealing with the other texts in the 
New Testament, which treat of the subject. We are not 
without strong hopes that a rigid analysis of the apostle's 
argument in this chapter may put an entirely new complexion 
upon it, in the estimation of the candid reader. We shall 
premise the remark, in which nearly all commentators agree, 
that whatever be the intrinsic nature of the resurrection 
which the apostle discusses, it pertains exclusively to the 
righteous. It is by no means an announcement of a gene- 
ral resurrection of all men without distinction. We go into 
no formal proof on this head, because it is obvious from the 
letter of the record, and because we find the resurrection 
elsewhere spoken of, in repeated instances, as the privilege, 
par eminence, of believers only. Doddridge remarks, that 
it is *' of the resurrection of Christians alone, and not of that 
of the wicked, that he evidently speaks, in this whole chap- 
ter." Of the passage in Acts 24. 15, which seems to con- 
tradict this position, we shall have occasion to speak here- 
after. 

1 Cor. XV. 12, 13. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Ei ds XQiarog xr^QvaaETai Now if Christ be preached 

on VA vey.Q6^v ^nyeoTca, n^g ^^^^^^ ^^^^ from the dead how 

T' / ,'t'^^r/ 3 / say some amon or you that there 

Uyovai nregevvf^tv^oitava- is ^o resurrection of the dead ? 

araatg vexQcov ov/. saTiv ; ^ But if there be no resurrec- 

Ei de avdaraaig ve'/.qoov ovx tion of the dead, then is Christ 

aariVf ovds XQiazog iyi^yeQTai, i^ot risen. 

The special doctrine of the resurrection, as generally 
held to be taught in this chapter, is that of a simultaneous 
resurrection at what is termed ' the last day,' or at ' the end 
of the world.' On this view it may fairly be submitted as a 



170 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

question, whether the apostle's reasoning is conclusive. We 
are unable to perceive how the fact of a resurrection at some 
future time can be adduced as a proof that Christ was already 
risen. And, on the other hand, if it could be shown that 
there will be no such resurrection, would that be a proof that 
Christ is not risen ? Is it not, at least, within the range of 
possibilities that he should be the only one raised? The 
truth is, as the apostle's argument is usually explained, it 
makes it little more than mere reasoning in a circle. First, 
the future resurrection of the saints is proved by the past 
resurrection of Christ; and then, secondly, the past resur- 
rection of Christ is proved by the future resurrection of 
his people. This consequence flows naturally and inevi- 
tably from regarding the resurrection of the righteous as a 
future simultaneous event. Let it be understood as a pres- 
ent event, or one that takes place with every individual be- 
liever as soon as he leaves the body, and this logical incon- 
sistency is avoided, and a flood of light poured upon the 
train of the apostle's reasoning. 

V. 16-18. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

El yuQ reyool ovk iyeiQOvrai, For if the dead rise not, then 

ovds Xoimog iyrnQTcu' ^^ "^S^}!^/?f ^.^'^^ • , . ^ 

, , o.^ ^ V' "^5 5 r And if Christ be not raised, 

El ds Xqiarog, ov^a tjrjeQ- ^^^^ ^^^.^j^ -^ ^^i^ . ^^ ^^^ y^^ 

rai, iiaiaia ij Ttiang vjjojv ' ezt [^ your sins. 
iars ev nug ccfiaQTiag vfxojv ' Then they also -which are 

''Jqu }ial 01 xoijJ.7]{^8vtag tv fallen asleep in Christ are per- 
Xqiara^ andiXovzo. isned. 

The gist of the apostle's argument occurs in a subse- 
quent part of the chapter, but we cannot but advert to the 
present passage as conveying a very singular sentiment, on 
the common theory, that Paul is here maintaining the resur- 
rection of the body. Upon that view we are at a loss to 
perceive the logical coherence of the reasoning. How does 
it follow that those who had fallen asleep in Jesus hadper- 
islied, provided there was no resurrection of the body? 
Their souls, the true constituent oHJieinselve^, were certainly 



THE SCfllPTLIUAL ARGUMENT. 171 

in being, and what should prevent their souls being saved, 
even if their bodies did not rise ? We are v/ell aware that 
a different sense is put upon the words by many commenta- 
tors, but we still do not hesitate to affirm, that the most 
native and obvious import of the language is that of the 
present existence of the persons spoken of If they are not 
risen — if they are not actually entered upon th^r resurrec- 
tion-state — where are they ? What evidence is there of 
their existing at all ? Accordingly, he immediately adds, 
*' If /?i this life only we have hope, we are of all men most 
miserable;" showing, conclusively, that he is reasoning 
against those who confined their hopes of happiness to this 
life only. His object is mainly to combat the error of those 
who supposed that the Christian's hope terminates here, and 
therefore he is not to be understood as writing against those 
who denied the resurrection of the body, but those who 
denied any resurrection at all, i. e. any future life, any state 
of retribution previous to Christ's second coming. 

It may not, indeed, be easy to ascertain how it should 
have happened that such an idea should have obtained cur- 
rency among any who could properly have been denominated 
believers in the Corinthian church. Some have supposed 
that they were Jewish-Christians, who still retained the 
leaven of Sudduoeeism in their creed, which, as Jews of all 
shades of belief were scattered over the Roman empire, is 
not in itself improbable. But the view of Billroth strikes us 
as the truest solution of the question. 

*^ In order to place the matter in a clear light, we must 
take into consideration a fact in the history of opinion 
among the early Christians. That fact is the prevailing ex- 
pectation among them of the immediate return of Christ, in 
connexion with which event they expected the fulfilment of 
all Christ's promises, and the perfection of the Messianic 
reign. The peculiar aim of the Christian, therefore, was not 
the life before, but the life after, Christ's return. But by 
whom would this aim be reached ? By those naturally, in 



172 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURKECTION. 

the first instance, who outlived the intervening period. 
Such, therefore, had comfort under all the trials of, life; but 
how was it with those who should die beforehand ? Such a 
question would very naturally disquiet the minds of the be- 
lievers, and take from them the joy of life. So it was with 
the church of Thessalonica, whose condition Pelt, in his 
Commentary on the epistles to that church, p. 83, thus ac- 
curately describes : * Many errors had arisen among the 
Thessalonians respecting the resurrection, so that some 
feared lest, should they or their friends die before the coming 
of the Lord, they should be deprived of that blessing which 
they supposed to be promised only to those who should be 
then alive.' The same state of things, doubtless, prevailed 
among the Corinthians. The majority, indeed, comforted 
themselves with the certain hope of a resurrection antece- 
dent to the coming of Christ; but some (the Jivsg, ver. 12) 
had doubts respecting the resurrection itself, and conse- 
quently of any participation on the part of those already 
dead in the enjoyment of the coming reign. The great ob- 
ject of Paul, then, in this section is, to show that before the 
return of Christ to the earth, a resurrection shall certainly 
take place of those who are dead, that they also may share 
in the blessings of his reign; and that this shall happen 
within the period of an ordinary lifetime." 

The refutation of the error in question, however, did 
not require that the resurrextion of the body should enter 
into the apostle's argument. On the other hand, by substi- 
tuting, throughout all the chapter, ^ living again,' — ' future 
life' — ' future state' — as a state to be immediately entered 
upon at death, instead of ' resurrection,' implying the resur- 
rection of the body — the whole course of reasoning becomes 
luminous and pertinent, while it is, at the same time, brought 
into perfect harmony with the general tenor of the Scrip- 
tures on the subject. 

But we follow the footsteps of the writer in his argu- 
ment. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUxMENT. 



173 



GR. 



Nvn ds XQiGTog eyrjeoTai. 

'ETTSldfJ yCiQ dl avO'QOOTTOV 6 



V. 20-23. 

ENG. VERS. 

But now is Christ risen from 
the dead, and become the first- 
fruits of them that slept. 



For since by man cam.e 



S-avccTog, xat di uvO-qcottov death, by man came also th 

avdaraaig rnxQcdv. resurrection of the dead. 

''^gneo yag iv ro) '^8au ^ . * . „ .. 

J ' n, / '■/ For as m Adam all die, even 

y.ai sv TQ) Xqkjto) Travreg alive. 
(^ojOTTorrjO^riaovTai. 



But every man in his own 
order: Christ the first-fruits; 
afterward they that are Christ's 
at his comincr. 



''EyiaoTog ds iv rep Idico rdy^ 
fian' anagyri XQiarog, tTiti- 
ra ol rov Xqigtov h rfi ttcc- 
Qovaitx avTov, 

As the first-fruits of the harvest are a sample of the whole, 
and being presented in the temple denominate the remainder 
pure and holy, so Christ, vvho, after his resurrection, was 
presented in the heavenly temple, may justly be regarded as 
an exemplar and type of the state of those who fall asleep 
in him, and an argument that they are not, as dead bodies 
were, among the polluted things of the world, but holy to 
the Lord, and admitted to his presence. The idea is not so 
much that Christ was the first, in tlie order of time, who rose 
from the dead — as we are expressly taught, both in the Old 
Testament and the New, that prior cases of resurrection 
had repeatedly occurred — but the^r^if in rank, the author, 
the procuring cause, of the resurrection of the saints. But 
the whole harvest began to be gathered in immediately after 
the presentation of the first-fruits, and it would be a very 
violent construction of the analogy to suppose it to imply 
that hundreds or thousands of years might elapse betv/een 
the resurrection of the grand Precursor and that of the mass 
of his followers. The true view of the matter is clearly in- 
dicated by the sequel, in which we are taught, that this re- 
suscitation of the dead, this investiture of the disciples of 
Christ with immortality, proceeds in a manner analogous 



174 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

with the successive generations of the animal and naortal 
family, who derive their first life from Adam. As this first 
family is not formed at once, nor dissolved at once ; as the 
members of it have risen into existence in succession ; so 
neither will the other family be completed at once. Every 
man of this family is to be quickened ^ in his own order,' or 
as he dies, from Christ the first-fruits down through the 
lapse of ages to the last generation of believers who shall 
be found alive at his coming. But this second coming of 
Christ, as we shall shortly attempt to show, was universally 
understood in the apostle's days as to take place during the 
then current generation of men — an expectation founded 
upon the words of Christ himself, that " that generation 
should not pass away till all these things be fulfilled." 

V. 35-37. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

'Al)^ 8Q£T rig ' Tzojg iyeiQOv- But some man will say, How 

7m ol rexQOi; noioi ds acouart ^^.^^ ^^"^^ ^^^d raised up? and 

-f ^ Avith what body do they come? 

tQXOvrat ; ^ ^^ ^ , Thou fool, that which thou 

^CfQOv, ova 67TEiQ8ig,ov sowest Is not quickencd cxcept 

^cooTTOithai, iav fxj] anoddvr^. it die. 

Kai anaiQug, ov to ccoi^ia And that which thou sowest, 

TO yevmouevov OTZHoeig, alia thou sowest not that body that 

' \ f 3 / / shall be, but bare ffram, it may 

yvixvov KO^cKor, Bijvio,, cixov ^^^^^^ '^^ wheat, or of some 

'I] Tivog TCfJv lomojp. other o-rain. 

We have here and in the sequel the most full, explicit, 
and systematic discussion of the general subject of the resur- 
rection, any where to be found in the Scriptures ; and what- 
ever else may be taught by it, we think nothing can be more 
unequivocally asserted, than that man does not rise again 
with the same body which he had in this world. The em- 
ployment of the analogy from the vegetable world was per- 
haps suggested by our Saviour's words, John 12. 24 : ^'Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into 
the ground and die, it abideth alone (i. e. is wholly unpro- 
ductive) ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." In 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 175 

the present state of our scientific knowledge, it might, 
perhaps, appear that an analogy drawn from insect transmu- 
tations would have been still more striking; but it may be 
questioned whether the facts in this province of nature were 
known to the apostle, and at any rate the law of vegetable 
reproduction to which he refers is sufficiently apropos to his 
main design. 

The grand inquiry evidently is, to ascertain the pr^ecise 
point of the analogy in the two cases, for upon this every 
thing depends. There is, in the first place, a coincidence 
in the fact of dying. In both cases there is that process of 
decay and dissolution which we denominate death. In the 
grain the mass of the farinaceous parts, except so much as 
may be necessary to the sustentation of the future plant in 
its earlier stages, dies. And so the human body undergoes 
a similar process of dissolution. Yet here we must aim at 
precision of ideas, and note the points of difference as well 
as of similitude. The ^ dying,' which the apostle predicates 
of the seed, takes place subsequently to the sowing. But 
the human body does not die after it is deposited in the dust. 
It is previously dead — '^ for the body without the spirit is 
dead" — and therefore cannot die again. That w^hich is ab- 
solutely dead cannot be more dead. Still there are items of 
agreement sufficient to form a basis for the comparison, 
which will appear as we proceed.* As there is something 
in the plant which dies, so there is also something which 
does not die. There is an enfolded germ, in which the es- 
sential vitality of the seed is concentrated, and if this dies, 
it does not germinate, and of course no plant springs up. 
We cannot, of course, suppose that the apostle intended to 
say that this embryo died, although this is the very point of 

* The remark of Whitby in this connexion is well worthy of notice : 
" The word ' sown' does not relate to the body's heing laid in the earthy 
but rather to its production in the world." According to this, a " natural 
body is sown" at our natural birth ; a " spiritual body is raised/' as far as 
the righteous are concerned, at the hour of death. 



176 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTIO . 

Thomas Paine's railing accusation against the Scripture 
doctrine of the resurrection, and on the ground of which he 
calls St. Paul a fool ; contending that, if the seed really and 
literally died, no plant would grow, which is indeed true. 
But this evidently is not the apostle's meaning; and if the 
skeptic had ever put his hand into a hill of young potatoes, 
he might have found, to his discomfort, that there was such 
a thing as vegetable life and death going on together : and 
such a penance, or penalty, would not perhaps have been 
very inappropriate to such paltry and contemptible cavil- 
ling. 

We see, then, very clearly, the law of vegetable reproduc- 
tion. The new plant arises from the development of a germ 
in the old one. The vitality of the seed adheres to the germ 
and passes with it into the new organization which succeeds, 
and with the vitality coexists the identity of the plant. So it 
is that we sow not the body which shall be. We sow a grain 
of wheat, and whatisit that comes up? Not the grain of wheat, 
but a blade of grass. It eventuates, indeed, in a head of wheat 
similar to that which is sown. But this is not the point of the 
apostle's argument. His reasoning, so to speak, does not rise 
above the surface of the ground. He designs to show that 
that product which springs out of the earth, and appears on 
its bosom, is something different from that which is put into 
the soil. If we call this the resurrection of the seed, it is per- 
fectly obvious that the term resurrection, in this connexion, 
does not imply the reappearance of the same material mass 
— the same aggregation of particles — which was deposited 
in the earth; for the mass, with the exception of the germ, 
dies — that is, is resolved into dust and its various constituent 
elements. 

Now, if this process is made use of by the apostle to 

illustrate the resurrection of the human body, we do not see 

but we must be forced to the admission of some kind of 

germ which is developed from the one that is the nucleus — 

he essential vital principle — of the other. It will soon ap- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. ITT 

pear, indeed, that it is a germ of a very peculiar nature, but 
still that there is something to be developed from the dead 
body. If not, how does the illustration apply? What is the 
point of the comparison? But if there be this embryo 
principle in the hum^an body, is it material? — is it of the 
same nature with the gross fabric from which it is develop- 
ed ? This, it will be perceived, is the grand question. The 
ancient Jews held that it was. They contended that there 
was an immortal bone in the human body (called by them Luz 
— ossiculum Luz), which is the germ of the resurrection-body. 
This bone, they held, one might burn, boil, bake, pound, 
bruise, or attempt to bruise, by putting it on the anvil and 
submitting it to the strokes of the sledge-hammer, but all in 
vain. No effect would be produced upon it. It was indestruc- 
tible — incorruptible — immortal. This bone was the seed of 
the future body. And this is, in fact, though not in terms, 
the theory embraced by Drew in his work on the resurrec- 
tion. But as the most accurate researches of physiologists 
have failed to discover any such bone in the system, and as 
the process of burning leaves no such residuum of the cor- 
poreal structure, we are doubtless at liberty to set it down 
among the thousand and one idle dreams of Rabbinical fic- 
tion, and put it on the same shelf with the silly tradition of 
the Talmudical doctors, that at the resurrection the bodies 
of the Jews, in whatever part of the world they died, will 
be rolled or transported under ground, through secret pas- 
sages, and all emerge to the light in the land of Canaan, with 
those of Abraham, and Isaac, and the other patriarchs. 

Still there is undoubtedly a strong disposition among 
many good men to adhere to this idea of a corporeal or ma- 
terial germ to be in some way developed from the old body, 
and constituting the nucleus of the new one. But if this be 
so, what and where is it ? What becomes of it when the 
body is burnt to ashes, and these ashes dissipated to the four 
winds? Is there any evidence that can satisfy an intelligent 
mind of the fact of such a latent material germ in the hu 



178 THE DOCTRINK OF THE RESURRECTION. 

man body, answering to the unfolded embryo of the future 
plant ? And if there is no evidence of this, on what grounds 
do we hold it ? 

But it will be said, if the apostle's analogy does not teach 
this, what does it teach? If the fair construction of his lan- 
guage does not imply that there is something developed out 
of the dead body which forms the link of connexion be- 
tween it and the resurrection-body, then it would be hard to 
show that it teaches any thing on the subject — an alternative 
to which, with the qualifications and explanations that follow, 
we readily subscribe. We cannot understand the apostle's 
reasoning, unless he means to affirm that there is something 
of the nature of a germ which emanates from the defunct 
body, and forms either the substance or the nucleus of the 
future resurrection-body. But this principle we contend to 
be what the apostle calls spiritual, that is, invisible, impal- 
pable, refined, ethereal — something that is essentially con- 
nected with vital operations — something that is exhaled with 
the dying breath, or, in other words, that goes forth from the 
body before it is consigned to the dust — for, after the body has 
mouldered away in the grave, we perceive not how any germ or 
embryo is ever to emanate from it. It is a something, of the 
interior nature of which all the philosophers in the world know 
just as much as our readers, and no more. At the same time 
this ignorance does not stand in the way o^ihe fact. And if 
this alleged fact be not admitted, what is? What will any man 
affirm to be the real point of the apostle's comparison ? If 
there is some gross material link of connexion between the 
soul's present and future tenement, what is it? Let it be 
pointed out, and let it be shown too that a vitalizing power 
is connected with it. For ourselves, we confess it completely 
baffles our comprehension, and if any one can enlighten 
our darkness on the subject — if he will show us that there is 
any other than a spiritual germ evolved from the defunct 
body — we will sit at his feet with the glad docility of a 
learner who hungers and thirsts for instruction more than 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 179 

for his necessary food. With our present light we must be- 
lieve that the only germ in the human body answering to the 
germ in the plant, and upon which the apostle's comparison is 
built, is the spiritual body itself; and the erroneous appre- 
hension which has sprung up on the subject, we think to 
have arisen from supposing the comparison to be based upon 
the condition of the tw^o bodies— the vegetable and the ani- 
mal — after both are deposited in the dust. Whereas the 
true view doubtless is, to conceive the germ of the plant to 
be developed after its consignment to the earth, but that of 
the body bfore. On any other construction we can make 
nothing of the illustrating analogy. 

We hear it, indeed, not unfrequently suggested, that the 
comparison here introduced was never intended to be very 
closed pressed — that it is sufficient if we simply under- 
stand b) it, that as a naked grain, after being deposited in the 
earth, is fallowed by a beautiful vegetable structure, so the 
corruptible body, deposited in the grave, is followed by a 
s^plendid renaM^ent fabric, adapted to a new sphere of exist- 
ence — and thai there was no design to hint at the detailed 
operation of any particular process in either case. But in 
-our view nothing is more certain, than that the apostle in- 
tended distinctly tote^ch, that as the grain of wheat obtains 
a new body only by previously dying, so man, by undergo- 
ing a similar process, beecmes possessed, in like manner, of 
a new inv.estment. We ^ajinot suppose Paul to have had 
recourse to the comparison, , without having in view some 
poirtt of resemblance in the tw^ cases, That^^m^ his own 
words certainly ^evelope. In i^gard to the grain he affirms, 
' Thou sowest not the body that sball be.' What is the cor- 
relative to this, unless it be, that * tfte body that dies is not 
- the same body that shall be at or after, the resurrection?' If 
so, how is it possible to turn away our e^e from the natural 
, law by whicli the change is in either case. effected ; or re- 
\ frain from instituting a comparison between :ihe two? But 
V we affirm that this cannot be done^^Mtbout arriving legiti- 



180 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

mately at the conclusion, that, as the plant emerges from the 
seed by the expansion of the germ, by the uninterrupted 
action of the vital principle, so the spiritual bod}' must de- 
velope itself immediately by the continuous operation of a 
like agency. Admit, for a moment, the idea that the life 
itself of the body ceases, and that it is only after long ages 
of time that the succeeding corporeity ensues, and the anal- 
ogy is at once destroyed. The true life of the seed is not 
for an instant intermitted, even in the midst of its dying ; 
and we maintain that it is only by the development of the 
spiritual body at death, and not from the entombed relics in 
the grave, that any parallelism in the tv/o cases can be re- 
cognized. 

If the view now proposed of the matter be sound, the abr^® 
question, v/hich immediately arises, as to the time vvhep'^his 
spiritual embryo may properly be said to germinate, b^oJ^^s 
of absorbing moment. Is the resurrection-body assumed at 
once, or does a long interval of time elapse beforrthat event 
occurs? If the theory of a gross material ger»^ were to be 
assumed as the true one, \no. can easily perceive that there 
would be nothing in the nature of the c^e to forbid the 
idea of a long interval intervening beforeit should be quick- 
ened into its ultimate formation. Thf vital power of seeds 
often remains dormant for an immensely long period; and 
so it might be in regard to the ger-n of a human body, pro- 
vided we could have evidence t^t any such germ existed, 
and that a vital energy was associated with it. But here is 
the precise point of the di^^culty. We see no adequate 
grounds for believing that such a staminal principle, mate- 
rial in its qualities, exists ; and till this is shown, we are re- 
lieved of the necessity of any other reference to the theory, 
than to demand of those who hold it to answer this fair in- 
terrogatory : If the resurrection of the body, which is de- 
posited in the earth, depends on the development of a 
corporeal germ, which no process of reasoning or experiment 
can show to exist, and the body itself is resolved back to 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 181 

its original elements, then on what basis rests the doctrine 
of the resurrection of that body — the tabernacle which we 
have inhabited on earth ? It will not do to say that God can 
rebuild the original fabric, for this contradicts and makes 
useless the doctrine of the material germ. 

We are inevitably thrown back, then, as far as we can 
see, on the theory, so to term it, of the immediate develop- 
ment and assumption of the spiritual body, and its entrance 
at once upon the resurrection-state. We know not how to 
conceive of a pause — a long suspension — in the essential 
activity of the vital principle with which thought and con- 
sciousness are connected. We are not, we presume, address- 
ing those who believe in the sleep of the soul after death, 
but those who expect to retain their conscious existence in 
the world of spirits. And if our intelligent principle goes 
with the vital, which depends upon various hidden ethereal 
agencies constantly operating around us, why shall we not 
infer that our spiritual mode of being commences at once 
upon the abandonment of our gross corruptible tenements ? 

We may perhaps admit, as some are disposed to maintain 
that this spiritual body does not attain to its perfection at 
once ; that as it enters the spiritual world as a germ, so as 
the vital principle, under appropriate laws, forms for itself — 
or, as the Germans say, builds up for itself — a material body, 
out of material elements ; in like manner it may gradually 
elaborate for itself a spiritual corporeity, from the spiritual 
elements by which it is surrounded. This, we say, may 
possibly be so. We can at present neither gainsay nor affirm 
it ; nor has it any special bearing on the main position, 
which is, that the resurrection of each individual, properly 
speaking, takes place at death, when we suppose the devel- 
opment of the spiritual body to occur. And what else, we 
should ask again, can be made of Paul's comparison ? Is .'t 
not the legitimate and irresistible inference ? And does not 
his own language, in the context, perfectly quadrate with 
this construction? '* There are bodies celestial, and there 

9 



182 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

are bodies terrestrial ;'' i. e. human bodies. It is, we believe, 
not unusual for expositors to understand the phrase * bodies 
celestial,' of the sun, moon, and planets. But this is en- 
tirely a modern diction. There is no evidence, we believe, 
that the original, o-w^axci, was ever used in this sense by the 
ancient writers, sacred or profane. The * bodies/ of which 
the apostle here speaks, are human bodies, and, as he says 
there are (not shall be) celestial human bodies, what other 
inference can we draw, than that they are the glorified resur- 
rection-bodies in which the risen saints now exist ? 
V. 38-41. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

' ds d^eog avrcp didcaai cm- But God giveth it a body as 

uayiad^(hgria8lm8,:ialsxdar(p '^ hath pleased him and to 

- / ^ ''5t ~ every eeed nis own body. 

tGiV C>7T8Qfi,atG)V TO lOiov ccofxa. -^ ^ 

Ov naaa cclq^ rj avt?] occQ^y All flesh is not the same 

alia allri ah av^ocoTzcov, ^^^^ 5 but there is one kind of 

''in 3^^ ^ t ~ ^'n 3^^ liesh 01 men, another flesh of 

allrjd8 6aQ^^TVVCov,allrjd8 ^^^^^^^ another of fishes, and 

tX^vcov, allrj d8 tiztjvcov. ^ another of birds. 

Kal ocofxara inovQana, y.al There are also celestial bod- 

ccofAara 8nl.y8ia' alX stequ dies, and bodies terrestrial : but 

U8V r? twv movoavmv do^a, the glory of the celestial is one, 

« / J^^ f - 5 / and the i?Iory oi the terrestrial 

8r8Qa 88 T] Tcov smysKor, . another 

^Ut] dola r]liov aai all?] There is one glory of the sun, 

do^a 68li^vi]g :<a} allrj do^a aa- and another glory of the moon, 

regcoV aarriQ yaq dorsQog and another glory of the stars; 

dia(r)8Q8L 8V doiv. ^^^ ^n^ ^^a^ differeth from an- 

^ ^ other star in glory. 

There can be little doubt we think, that vv^ith multitudes 
of the readers of this apostle these words are loosely under- 
stood to intimate that it is in eflfect the same body (of the 
seed) which is sown in the earth, v/hich comes forth out of 
it, although the apostle had just affirmed the contrary ; and 
therefore the inference is hastily drawn, that as God gives to 
every seed his own body, so in like manner he gives to every 
man his own body, i. e. the same body.* But a moment's re- 

* " But your Lordship proves it to be the same body, by these three 
Greek words of the text, rd I'Scov which yonr Lordship interprets 



THE SCRIPTURAL iiRGUMENT. ]§3 

flection will convince us that by ' giving to every seed his own 
oody :s meant nothing more than his gM„g to every seed a 
bodypecuhar to that kind of seed. A seed of wheat does not 
produce a stalk of barley, nor a seed of barley a stalk of 
wheat. The species are kept distinct bv a mysterious ar- 
rangement of Providence. This is the force of the original 
To„5,o. cra5,„a, Ms own proper body, i. e. the body whichit is 
htted to produce, which is of the same kind. God in the 
constitution of the vegetable kingdom has established, from 
h.s mere good pleasure, such laws as will regulate the pro- 
cess of reproduction, and cause that certain seeds shall Le 
rise to certain plants and no others. In like manner he 
proceeds, in the following verses, to show by similitudes 
drawn from various natural objects, that man may have a 
different body fitted to the different state into which he enters 
at death-that though the natural body should rise no 
more, yet provision is made for his being furnished with a 
better in its stead ; for as there is an earthly body adapted 
to an earthly life, so there is a heavenly body adapted to a 
heavenly l.fe. The existence in such profusion of different 
species of bodies in the universe, ought to furnish an argu- 
ment that there was nothing incredible in the idea of The 



thus That proper body which belongs to it.' Ans, Indeed, by those 
Greek words, whether our translators have rightly rendered thel -hs 

loIL . ? °^^ 1'°'''''' ""^"^ ''^'' ' ''^" '^-P- '^'y -hicL b ! 
ongs to .t I formerly understood no more but this, that in the produc- 
tu,n of wheat and other grain from seed, God contrived every species 
dzstmct so that from grains of wheat sown, root, stalk, blade, ear and 
grains of wheat were produced, and not those of barley ; and so of the 
rest, which I took to be the meaning of < to every seed his own body ' 
No says your Lordship, these words prove, that to every plant of wheat' 
and to every grain of wheat produced in it, is given < the proper body that 
belongs to it,' 1. e. the same body with the grain that was sown. This 
I confess I do not understand; because I do not understand how one' 
individual grain can be the same with twenty, fifty, or an hundred indi- 
vidunl gr^ms."— Locke's Letter to Slillingfleet, p. 137 



184 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

saints being immediately invested with appropriate bodies 
in another state, as well as in this — nothing which could 
justly authorize the objection, that because the body which 
was laid in the grave remains there, therefore there is no 
resurrection of the man. The following verses are merely 
an expansion of this general idea.* 

V. 42-44. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

OvTco aal i] avdaraaig roov So also is the resurrection of 

rsxow^- a7iBiQETaiiv(p&0Qa, the dead. Itis sownin corrup- 

5 7 5 5 n f ^ ^ '' tion, it IS raised in incorrup- 

ayEiQStai ev aq)VaQ(jia ^-^^^ ^ 

ZnEiQEtai iv ariiAia,JyuQE' it'jg sown in dishonor, it. 

ratir do^ri' aTteiQETaiir aa&S' is raised in glory: it is sown 

vsia, iyeiQSiai iv Svvdfxet • in weakness, it is raised in 

^neiperai amua ipvyrAOv, power: 
5 , ^ -« ' . It IS sown a natural body, it 

8j8iQ8Tai acoiia nvEVixarixov -^ ^^j^^^ ^ ^^ir[in?.\ body. ' 

86ri acofxa xpy^r^ov, y.ai aari There is a natural body, and 

ocoixa TTVEVfiarrAOV. there is a spiritual body. 

The true purport of this language is not so obvious as 
might at first blush appear. The point of difficulty is to 
determine whether the ' sowing' as applied to the body, is 
to be understood of its consignment to dust, or as Whitby 
suggests, of the corrupt and corruptible nature in which 
man is bom into the worldA In favor of the former in- 



* " The sense is, ' There is a great variety of bodies. Look upon the 
heavens, and see the splendor of the sun, the moon, and the stars. And 
then look upon the earth, and see the bodies there — the bodies of men, 
and brutes, and insects. You see here two entire cZffsses of bodies. You 
see how they differ. Can it be deemed strange if there should be a differ- 
ence between our bodies when 'on earth, and when in heaven? Do we 
not, in fact, see a vast difference between what strikes our eye here on 
earth and in the sky ] And why should we deem it strange that between 
bodies adapted to live here and bodies adapted to live in heaven, there 
should be a difference, like that which is seen between the objects which 
appear on earth and those which appear in the sky?" — Barnes in loc. 

t Mr. Locke, as appears in his note on these words, evidently agrees 
with Whitby on this point : — '^ The time that man is in ths world, affixed 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 185 

terpretation, it is doubtless true that it makes the com- 
parison more striking. But on the other hand, we have seen 
that the analogy will not bear to be pressed to the quick, as 
it is obvious that the dying affirmed of the seed is not 
strictly parallel with the dying which holds good of the 
body. In the one case it takes place after the subject is 
deposited in the earth, in the other before. But another 
consideration of still greater weight is derived from the con- 
trast which follows between Adam and Christ. ^* And so it 
is written, the first Adam was made a living soul (ipv/i} 
^c5(j«), the last Adam a quickening spiritJ^ But how 
does this illustrate the case of the natural and spiritual 
body? The answer to this is suggested by the import of 
the terms which the writer employs. The original word 
for 50wZ(</^i7^) is that which is always employed by the apos- 
tle to denote the animal soul, or the life of the natural or 
animal man, as contradistinguished from spiritual. It is the 
substantive from which is formed the adjective ipv/jxog always 
translated in the New Testament natural. Now the apostle 
had just said that *' it is sown a natural body, it is raised 
a spiritual body." Here he refers us to the origin of these 
two bodies. The one is derived from Adam, the other from 
Christ. In Adam we are sown a natural body, in Christ w^e 
are raised a spiritual body. His object is to teach that there is 
just such a difference between our natural and spiritual body, 
as there is between the nature which we receive from Adam, 
and the nature which we subsequently receive from Christ. 
The ^ sowing' therefore is our birth in Adam, or in the 
nature of Adam, and our resurrection but the finished result 
of our birth by regeneration in Christ ; " for as the Father 

to this earth, is his being sown, and not when, being dead, he is put in 
the grave, as is evident from St. Paul's own words. For dead things are 
not sown ; seeds are sown, being alive, and die not till after they are 
sown. Besides, he that will attentively consider what follows, will find 
reason from St. Paul's arguing to understand him so." — Paraph, and 
Notes on the Epistles, p. 101. 



186 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth whom he will, so hath 
he given to the Son to have life in himself," i. e. to be the 
communicator of spiritual life, of which the resurrection of 
the righteous dead, of whom alone he is here speaking, is 
but the completed issue. So far is the apostle from teaching 
that the body is * sown ' by being deposited in the grave. It 
is sown at its hirtJi^ and not at its death.^^ 

* The following passage was not met with till after the above was 
written. 

" Confessedly certain as is the corporeality of the risen saints, room is 
open for inquiring what corporeality it is which is to be understood as 
transmuted and risen to heaven. When St. Paul speaks of ' this corrup- 
tible/ ' this mortal' — when he says, ' it is sown in corruption, it is raised 
in incorruption ' — does he refer to the sarkous mass left behind by the de- 
ceased ] Is the funeral of the fleshly frame the sowing of the seed 1 Is 
the sepulchral enclosure the seed-plot ] Is the putrescent frame itself the 
bared but solid, the denuded but valuable, the relatively dead but really 
living, the seemingly decomposing, but actually germinating grain? Or 
is it, when its purposes as an envelope are answered, mere chaff detached 
by the flail of disease, and blown away by the wind of death 1 

" Evident it will be, on a calm perusal of his eloquent argument, that 
the apostle has no reference to the sepulchre, or the funeral, or the soul- 
bereft corpse. His controversy was not with any who themselves denied, 
or with any who imagined any Christian instructor to have ever taught, 
or fancied, that the deposited frame would again be animated by any but 
reptile vitality ; his controversy was with parties who, if they did not set 
aside entirely an after life, or deny in toto a resurrection of the dead, pe- 
remptorily denied a resurrection from the dead, and while thereby exclud- 
ing the fear of judgment from themselves, cut off* from the faithful the 
prospect of reaching heaven. Had the reintegration of the disintegrated 
corpse been the position denied, the deniers, instead of being indignantly 
opposed, would have been cordially supported by all the apostle's authority. 
Far too positively had St. Paul decided, that he who sowed to the flesh 
should reap corruption, to allow of his supposing that he who sowed the 
flesh itself would reap any thing else than mere putridity. Not one of his 
pleas, nor one of his expressions throughout the course of his discussion 
can be made to apply to the fleshly frame, then only occasionally moulder- 
ing in the ground, but ever, after an interval, mouldered away. Neither 
germination {^ojoTroirjtng) , nor wakening up (syepais), nor standing up 
(dudffTuais) , nor transformation (dXXdy*;), nor putting on investiture 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT, 187 

At the same time, although we are fully persuaded that 
this is the true sense of the apostle's language in this con- 
nexion, yet we are not absolutely shut up to it in order to 
make good the view we are advocating. Even interpreted 
on the common theory, it does not necessitate the infer- 
ence, that the resurrection here spoken of is the resurrec- 
tion of the body, although it is doubtless the resurrection of 
a body. We are aware, indeed, that it is generally held 
that it is the very same body that is sown in corruption 
in the grave that is raised in incorruption out of the 
grave. But to our mind it is clear that the fact of its be- 
ing incorruptible y proves that it cannot be the same with 
that w^hich is corruptible, and that nothing more is meant, 
than that the corruptible shall be exchanged for the incor- 
ruptible, the mortal for the immortal. The established 
idiom of the Scriptures affords decisive warrant for this con- 
struction. Examples occur where the demonstrative * it,' 
which usually implies the same as the antecedent noun to 
which it stands related, refers not to precisely the same sub- 
ject, but to one that succeeds. Thus Luke 9. 24 : *' For 
whosoever will save his life, shall lose it ; but whosoever 

{zv6v(ni)-, can be predicated of any subject that is not in an organized and 
really living condition, however reputedly and relatively dead its state, 
nor can the word body (o-oi/m) be referred to a system entirely decomposed ; 
or the word ' resurrection/ be made to signify reconstruction ; or ^ resur- 
rection from the dead/ be twisted into meaning the reanimated integu- 
ments from the superficial soil ; or the corpse be defined to be a soul, body, 
and a living soul ; or the body, dead and corrupt, be said to be corruptible 
and mortal. In no part of his argument does* St. Paul give the slightest 
intimation that he is pleading for the re-collection and re-organization of 
the anywhere remaining particles, or for the future development of any 
supposed stamina of the exterior frame, but peremptorily excluding flesh 
and blood from entering, under any modification whatever, into the king- 
dom of God, he again and again makes it clear that he was demonstrating 
the resurrection of the dead {o\ vcKpoC), their very selves, and not their 
laid-aside vestments, but their personal hypostasis, was the theme of his 
discourse, and the subject of his anticipations."— «S^e2?Acn5a?i*5 Christology^ 
p. 164-166. 



188 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



will lose his life for my sake shall find it." The saved and 
the lost life in this antithesis are not the same, the one being 
natural, the other spiritual and eternal. This, at any rate, 
is the prominent idea ; however, in a secondary sense, the 
words in both members may hold good of the natural life.* 



* We here again append the remark of Mr. Locke on v. 53, of this 
chapter. " To (pdaprov^ corruptible, and rd dprjrdv, mortal, have not here 
<TiJj(jLa, body, for their nominative, as some imagine, but are put in the neu- 
ter gender absolute, and stand to represent vsKpoi, dead, as appears by the 
immediately preceding verse, and also v. 42, ovrco Kal dvaaraatg rojv vcKp^v • 
cTTdperai iv (pdopa^ SO is the resurrection of the dead; it is sown in cor- 
ruption, i. e. mortal corruptible men are sow^n, being corruptible and 
w^eak. Nor can it be thought strange, or strained, that I interpret (pOaprov 
and dvrjTop as adjectives of the neuter gender to signify persons, when in 
this very discourse the apostle uses two adjectives in the neuter gender to 
signify the persons of Adam and Christ, in such a way as it is impossible 
to understand them otherwise. The words, no farther off than v. 46, are 
these : dXAa ov npoiTOV to frvevjxariKov, dXXa rd xpv^iKov' eireira to TTvEVjxaTiKOv^ 
but that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; after- 
loards that which is spiritual. The like way of speaking we have Mat. 
1. 20, and Luke 1. 35, in both which the person of our Saviour is ex- 
pressed by adjectives of the neuter gender. To any of all which places I 
do not think any will add the substantive cdiia^ body, to make out the 
sense. That, then, which is here meant being this, that this mortal man 
shall put on immortality, and this corruptible man incorruptibility, any 
one will easily find another nominative case to (nreipsTaiy is sown, and not 
cco[xay body, whenhe considers the sense of the place, wherein the apostle's 
purpose is to speak of vcKpoij mortal men, being dead, and raised again to 
life, and made immortal." 

We may properly adduce in this connexion the remarks of Mr. Locke 
in another passage of the same letter (p. 195) : ''Your Lordship goes on 
with your proofs, and says, ' But St. Paul still supposes it must be that 
material substance to which the soul was before united ; for he says. It 
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorniption, &c. Can such a ma- 
terial substance which was never united to the body, be said to be sown 
in corruption, and weakness, and dishonor ? Either, therefore, he must 
speak of the same body, or his meaning cannot be comprehended.' I 
answer, can such a material substance, which was never laid in the grave, 
be said to be sown, &e. ? For your Lordship says, ' You do not say the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



189 



V. 50-53. 



ENG. VERS. 



Tovzo ds q)i]fA,i, adtXcpoi, on 
caqi, xccJ aiiia ^aaileiav x)^eov 
TikrjQOVOixfiaai ov dtvaviai, ov- 
ds Tj q)d'OQa T7]v acpd^aQalav 
y>XrjQOvofAH, 

^Idov, (AvazriQiov vfxTv Xeyco ' 
Tidvieg fASv ov xoif47]d^r]66ix8&a, 
ndvreg ds dXXay7]66jbt8&a ' 

^Ev dro^op, Iv QiTirj ocpd^aX- 
fxov, iv ttJ i(yxdTri Gdlmyji ' 
(aaXTTiasi yccQ, xal oi vexQol 
£ysQ&)](yot'TaL acpd^aqroL, vm 
TjfxeTg dlXayTjao^sda') 

/lei yao to cpOagrov rovro 
ipduoaad^ai dq)d'aQ(jiar, xal 
TO 'OrrjTOv tovto ivdvaaadai 
dd^avaoiav. 



Now this I say, brethren, 
that flesh and blood cannot in- 
herit the kingdom of God ; 
neither doth corruption inherit 
incorruption. 

Behold, I show you a mys- 
tery : We shall not all sleep, 
but we shall all be changed, 

In a moment, in the twink- 
ling of an eye, at the last trump ; 
for the trumpet shall sound, and 
the dead shall be raised incor- 
ruptible, and we shall be 
changed. 

For this corruptible must put 
on incorruption, and this mortal 
must put on immortality. 



The apostle's declaration that '^ flesh and blood cannot 
inherit the kingdom of God," would naturally give rise to 
inquiry respecting the absolute universality of the change 
which he had thus far been describing. As it was a fair 
inference from the general tenor of the apostolic teaching, 
that our Lord's second advent would occur during the ac- 
tual career of human existence on the earth, the Corinthian 
converts could not well repress the query, how it would fare 
with those who might be sojourning in the flesh at the time 
when that coming should occur. Would they also die like 
those who had gone before them ? How would they be 



same individual particles, which were united at the point of death, shall 
be raised at the last day ;' and no other particles are laid in the grave but 
such as are united at the point of death. Either therefore your Lordship 
must speak of another body different from that which was sown, which 
shall be raised, or else ' your meaning/ I think, ' cannot be comprehend- 
ed.'" 



190 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION 

divested of flesh and blood, and thus made capable of unit- 
ing with the risen saints in a conjoint inheritance of the 
heavenly kingdom ? This problem the vt^riter now proceeds 
to solve. As he had just intimated the impossibility of en- 
tering on the future life with the present body, he here ad- 
vances to the explanation of a mystery, that is, the disclosure 
of a secret, the purport of which was, that those who* should 
be alive at that day would undergo a change that should fit 
them, as well as the dead, for entering into the kingdom of 
God. ''We shall not all sleep (i. e. die), but we shall all 
be changed (i. e. all we who are then living)." This he 
calls the ' showing of a mystery ;' by which is meant simply, 
according to Scriptural usage, the explication of an Old 
Testament type, symbol, or emblem. The allusion is 
probably to the translation of Enoch and Elijah, which 
the apostle would represent as a mystical foreshadow- 
ing of the fact of a similar change to be wrought on a 
large scale on the saints who should still be living at the 
epoch of the Saviour's final manifestation, the certainty of 
which is again declared by the remark, that it was neces- 
sary that the corruptible should put on incorruption, and 
the mortal, immortality. The language thus viewed is 
brought into direct parallelism with what the same apostle 
declares, 1 Thes. 4. 17 : '' Then we which are alive and 
remain, shall be caught up together W4th them in the clouds, 
to meet the Lord in the air : and so shall we ever be with 
the Lord ;'' a passage of which we shall give an extended 
exposition in its proper place. 

But Ave here encounter a great difficulty in view of our 
previous position, that the true resurrection takes place at 
the death of every individual believer, when he emerges 
from a material into a spiritual body. Is it not clearly im- 
plied, not to say expressly asserted, in this passage, that the 
resurrection of all the righteous is simultaneous, and that 
this event is still future, to occur at the epoch of the second 



THfc: SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 191 

advent and in conjunction with the translation of the living 
saints? 

We can of course hav€ no object in denying or disguising 
the fact that these words have very much the air of direct- 
ly contravening the general tenor of our interpretation of 
the preceding portions of this chapter. Still, if our previ- 
ous train of reasoning be sound — if our conclusions be 
fairly sustained by the evidence adduced — it is certain that 
these words rightly understood cannot be in conflict with 
them. Every part of the word of God must be in harmony 
with every other part, though apparent discrepancies may ex- 
ist, to the cleaK conciliation of which we may not always be 
competent. In the present case we are so strongly persuaded 
of the truth of our previous conclusions, founded both upon 
the intrinsic nature of the subject itself, and upon the ju&t 
interpretation of language, that our confidence in them is 
no wise shaken by the literal reading of a passage, which, 
seems at first view to enforce entirely another theory. It re- 
mains, therefore, to inquire in what manner this declaration 
of the apostle is to be made consistent with what we con- 
ceive to be the general teaching of the New^ Testament on 
^he subject of the resurrection^ viz.^ that it is the same ivith 
the future life of the righteous. 

The position is very easily made out that the general 
expectation of the Jews looked forward to a period of con- 
summation or restitution, frequently called ' the last day'— 
* the world to come' — * the reign of the Messiah,' — when a 
new order of things was to be ushered in, among which 
was to be the event, denominated the resurrection of 
the dead. Connected with this was the deliverance of the 
Jewish nation from the yoke of their enemies — their ad- 
vancement to acknowledged pre-eminence over all other peo- 
ple—the restoration of the Shekinah- — the rebuilding of 
Jerusalem and its temple in renovated splendor — the en- 
dowment of the earth with a new and unexampled fertility — 
the cessation of wars and bloodshed — and an indefinite peri- 



92 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

od of peace, prosperity, and happiness, from the rising to 
the going down of the sun. This predicted consummation 
does indeed form the burden of a multitude of the Old Testa- 
ment prophecies, which the Jews, overlooking the previous 
ordained humiliation of the Messiah, applied to his Jirst ad- 
vent. We know that they belong to his second advent, and 
that they constitute the leading features of that economy 
which was to be ushered in at the time when Christ, under 
the Gospel, should take possession of his spiritual and 
eternal kingdom. Now it is unquestionable that our 
Lord, in predicting his second coming, Mat. 24 and 25, 
does in reality announce, in accordance with. Dan. 7. 15, 28, 
the same great era, though it is essentially interwoven with 
the tissue of his predictions respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and that appearing which was to take place 
during the lifetime of some of the men of that generation. 
We learn from the event, that the prophecy included a vast 
extent of time, although it was so framed that its chronologi- 
cal relations could not be easily discovered ; and consequently 
we see no reason to doubt that, as they were not instructed 
to the contrary, the apostles themselves generally anticipat- 
ed the grand consummation as destined speedily to occur, 
and probably even within the limits of their own natural 
lives. And let it here be remarked, that while the predic- 
tions of our Lord himself on this subject were in fact but 
the application of numerous Old Testament prophecies to 
their true-meant design, these predictions, thus drawn from 
the earlier prophets, w^ere the foundation of all the know- 
ledge which the apostles possessed respecting the Lord^s 
second coming. In other words their own announcements 
on the subject were not strictly, original or uttered de novOj 
but were the echo of the Saviour's oracles, and of those of 
the Old Testament on which they were founded. Thus the 
remarkable passage 1 Thes. 4. 15-17, is but a paraphrase of 
Christ's prediction. Mat. 24. 29-34, whence he introduces 
it by stating, '^ This we say unto you bi/ the tcord of the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT, 19 3 

Lord.'' Consequently, if the true meaning of the symbolic 
language in which our Lord delivered his predictions was 
not made known to the apostles, of which their writings af- 
ford no evidence, they would naturally interpret them accord- 
ing to the letter, and suppose a speedy fulfillment. It is also 
to be borne in mind, that the epistles were written in the 
interval between the crucifixion and the destruction of Je- 
rusalem, with which, from the tenor of the Saviour's predic- 
tions they were led to suppose that the * end of the world' 
(alcoVj age, dispensation, order of things) was synchronical. 
What, then, more natural, nay, unless expressly informed 
to the contrary, what more inevitable, than that they should 
have cherished the expectation, that they should themselves 
behold the Lord appear in the clouds of heaven, and be 
themselves caught up to meet him in the air ? 

We may properly adduce in this connexion, from two 
very opposite sources, a concurrent testimony bearing upon 
the view of the subject we have now proposed. The first 
is an extract from Gibbon {Dec. and Fall of the Rom. 
Emp., p. 185, Lond. ed. 1830) : " In the primitive church 
the influence of truth was very powerfully strengthened by an 
opinion which, however it may deserve respect for its use- 
fulness and antiquity, has not been found agreeable to ex- 
perience. It was universally believed, that the end of the 
world, and the Kingdom of Heaven were at hand. The 
near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted 
by the apostles ; the tradition of it was preserved by their 
earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal 
sense the discourses of Christ himself, were obliged to ex- 
pect the second and glorious coming of the Son of man in 
the clouds, before that generation was totally extinguished, 
which had beheld his humble condition upon earth, and 
which might still be witness of the calamities of the Jew^s 
under Vespasian or Hadrian. The revolution of seventeen 
centuries has instructed us not to press too closely the mys- 
terious language of prophecy and revelation ; but as long as 



194 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

for wise purposes, this error was permitted to subsist in the 
church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the 
faith and practice of Christians, who lived in the awful ex- 
pectation of that moment when the globe itself, and all the 
various race of mankind, should tremble at the appearance 
of the divine Judge." 

The other is a passage from Dr. Watts, in his ** Essay 
towards the proof of a separate state of souls,'* prefixed to 
his '' World to Come." 

" As the patriarchs and the Jews of old, after the Mes- 
siah was promised, were constantly expecting his first com- 
ing almost in every generation, till he did appear, and 
many modes of prophetical expression in Scripture, which 
speak of things long to come, as though they were present 
or just at hand, gave them some occasion for this expecta- 
tion ; so the Christians ofthejirst age did generally expect 
the second coming of Christ to judgment, and the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, in that very age wherein it was foretold. 
St. Paul gives us a hint of it in 2 Thes. 2. 1,2. They sup- 
posed the day of the Lord was just appearing. And many 
expressions of Christ concerning his return, or coming 
again after his departure, seem to represent his absence as 
a thing of no long continuance. It is true these words of 
his may partly refer to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, 
and the coming in of his kingdom among the gentiles ; or 
his coming by his messenger of death ; yet they generally, 
in their supreme or final sense, point to his coming to raise 
the dead, and judge the world. And from the words of 
Christ, also, concerning John, ^ If I will that he tarry till I 
come' (John 21. 22), it is probable that the apostles them- 
selves at first, as well as other Christians, might derive this 
apprehension of his speedy coming, 

** It is certain (Dr. W. proceeds) that when Christ speaks 
of his coming in general, and promiscuous, and parabolical 
terms, whether with regard to^the destruction of Jerusalem 
or the judgment of the world, he saith, * Verily I say unto 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 195 

you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be ful- 
filled, (Matt. 24. 24). And the apostles frequently told the 
world, the coming of the Lord was near : ' The Lord is at 
hand^ (Phil. 4. 5) : * Exhorting one another — so much the 
more, as you see the day approaching' (Heb. 10. 25) : and 
that this is the day of the coming of Christ, verse 37 assures 
us : * For yet a little while, he that shall come will come, 
and will not tarry,' *Now it is high time to awake out of 
sleep : the night is far spent; the day is at hand' (Rom. 
13. 12). ' To him who is ready to judge the quick and 
the dead' (1 Pet. 4. 5). ' The end of all things is at hand' 
(ver. 7). *The coming of the Lord draweth nigh: Behold 
the judge standeth at the door' (James 5. 8, 9). ' Seal not 
up the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand' (Rev. 
22. 10). * And behold, I come quickly, and my reward is 
with me, to give to every man as his work shall be ' (ver. 
12). And the sacred volume is closed with this assurance, 
* Surely / come quickly :' and the echo and expectation of 
the apostle, or the church, * Amen ! even so, come, Lord 
Jesus.' 

*^It is granted (our author goes on) that in prophetical 
expressions, such as all these are, some obscurity is allowed : 
and it may be doubtful, perhaps, whether some of them may 
refer to Christ's coming by the destruction of Jerusalem, 
or his coming to call particular persons away by his mes- 
senger of death, or his appearance at the last judgment. It 
is granted, also, that it belongs to prophetical language to 
set things far distant, as it were before our eyes, and make 
them seem present, or very near at hand. But still these 
expressions had plainly such an influence on the primitive 
Christians, as that they imagined the day of resurrection and 
judgment was very near." 

But to all this we are aware it may be objected, that it 
impugns the inspiration and infallibility of the sacred wri- 
ters. If they labored under a mistake on this point, how 
can they be said to have been prompted by the unerring 



196 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

guidance of the Holy Spirit? And if they have mistaken 
the mind of the Spirit in regard to the doctrine of the 
second advent, why may they not have mistaken it on other 
doctrines, and thus the church be left without an infallible 
standard of truth ? 

To the objection thus urged we reply, in the first place, 
that it does not present a fair issue. The question is not 
whether the apostles have erroneously represented any doc- 
trine which they were inspired to deliver, but how far their 
inspiration extended. The sacred writers were made the sub- 
jects, or rather the organs, of special revelations^ — revelations 
lying entirely without the compass of their own unassisted 
faculties. These revelations they must be admitted to have 
correctly and infallibl}' reported. In the nature of the case 
it could not be otherwise. The revelations were not their 
own — were not the product of their own intelligence, nor 
required, in fact, their own cognizance. They were the 
instruments through which the Spirit of God spake, and we 
know not how to conceive the possibility of a mistake un- 
less the Spirit himself were mistaken, which it is blasphemy 
to suppose. So far, then, as the revelations were concerned, 
the apostles must of course be considered as having spoken 
with absolute inerrancy. But these revelations, as made 
to the sacred writers, did not include every thing ; they did 
not even include every thing connected with them, as for in- 
stance the attribute of time. There are cases, indeed, where 
the time of certain events forms the special subject-matter 
of the revelation and the record; but in numerous instances 
the event was revealed without any intimation of the time. 
So also of the precise manner of the accomplishment. This 
did not always enter into the materiel of ihe announcements 
which they were prompted to utter. Accordingly, we learn 
that the prophets *' inquired and searched diligently ivhat or 
what manner of time, the spirit which was in them did sig- 
nify when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, 
and the glory that should follow.'^ Now it is easy to under- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 197 

stand that they may have infallibly reported all that was ac- 
tually revealed to them or through them, and yet they may 
not have been infallible in the construction which they may 
have put upon the concomitant circumstances of the matters 
that they v^ere to make known. Otherwise, what occasion 
was there for the * diligent search ' which their spirits were 
prompted to accomplish? Acting as the organs of certain 
divine communications, it would be natural that they should 
exercise their thoughts upon the themes that thus expressed 
themselves through them. But the judgments which they 
personally formed on these disclosures, being distinct from 
the truths themselves, may not have been free from error, 
simply for the reason, that they did not come really within 
the scope of their inspiration. The mind of the Spirit is 
one thing, and their personal view of its meaning is an- 
other ; and it is very conceivable that we, from having more 
ample data, we may be better able to judge of this meaning 
than they were. Who can doubt that John the Baptist was 
better able to understand Isaiah's or David's language re- 
specting the first coming of Christ than were Isaiah or 
David themselves? We contend therefore, that it does not 
truly detract from Paul's claims to inspiration that he should 
not have understood what was not revealed, or that he 
should have so stated what was revealed as to evince that 
he had in some respects mistaken its true purport — that he 
should have put upon it a sense which we now know to be 
erroneous. This he may have done, and still leave the 
main announcement in its full integrity. 

In this view we are happy to be confirmed by the author- 
ity of Mr. Barnes, in his remarks on the very passage we 
are now considering. ** I do not know that the proper doc- 
trine of inspiration suffers, if we admit that the apostles were 
iornorant of the exact time when the world would close ; or 
even that in regard to the precise period when that would 
take place, they might be in error. The following consid- 
erations may be suggested on this subject, showing that the 



198 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

claim to inspiration did not extend to the knowledge of this 
fact. (1) They were not omniscient ; and there is no more 
absurdity in supposing that they were ignorant on this sub- 
ject than in regard to any other. Inspiration extended to 
the order of future events, and not to the times. There is in 
the Scriptures no statement of the time when the world would 
close. (2) Future events were made to pass before the mind 
of the prophets, as in a landscape. The order of the images 
may be distinctly marked, but the times may not be desig- 
nated. And even events which may occur in fact at distant 
periods, may in vision appear to be near each other; as in a 
landscape, objects which are in fact Separated by distant in- 
tervals, like the ridges of a mountain, may appear to lie close 
to each other. (3) The Saviour expressly said, that it was not 
designed that they should hiow when future events would 
occur. Thus, after his ascension, in answer to an inquiry 
¥/hether he then would restore the kingdom to Israel, he said 
(Acts 1. 7), ' It is not for you to know the times or the sea- 
sons which the Father has put in his own power.' The 
Saviour said that even he himself, as man, was ignorant in 
regard to the exact time in which future events would occur. 
^ But of that day and that hour, knoweth no man, no not 
the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Fa- 
ther.' Mark 8. 32. (4) The apostles were in fact igno- 
rant and mistaken in regard to, at least, the time of the occur- 
rence o^one future event, the death of John (21. 23). There 
is, therefore, no departure from the proper doctrine of inspi- 
ration, in supposing that the apostles vi^ere not inspired on 
these subjects, and that they might be ignorant like others. 
The proper or^er of events they state truly and exactly; the 
exact tirne God did not, for wise reasons, intend to make 
known." 

We remark, in the second place, that the present case 
is peculiar. Our Lord's second coming and its associated 
events are described in highly symbolic and prophetic terms, 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 199 

taken mostly from the language of the Old Testament pro- 
phets, and so framed as to be intrinsically obscure and ca- 
pable of being erroneously apprehended. Nor does it ap- 
pear that Christ himself distinctly laid open to his disciples 
the nature of that event. Consequently, as the predictions 
respecting the first coming were so worded as to be liable to 
misunderstanding before he came, even by the very prophets 
themselves who recorded them, so the idea seems entirely 
reasonable, that the predictions respecting his second com- 
ing may not have been perfectly understood in all respects 
even by the apostles and the primitive Christians. And 
why does their ignorance on this single point — the time and 
manner of the second advent — any more invalidate their in- 
spiration than a like ignorance in the Old Testament 
writers invalidates theirs? The apostle in the present in- 
stance discloses the grand fundamental fact, that at the time 
to which the Holy Spirit refers there should be a translation 
of the living saints. This he has stated infallibly, because 
he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, and how 
could he make any other than an infallible suggestion ? 
But we have no evidence that the precise time of this event 
was any where made known, and therefore it was to be ex- 
pected that Paul should assign it to that epoch which he 
supposed to be intended when our Saviour said, that '^ this 
generation shall not pass away till all these things shall be 
fulfilled." Is it affirmed that this was misleading his 
readers ? Then we would ask whether our Lord is not 
equally to be charged, in the above words, with misleading 
his readers ? We well know by what criticisms upon the 
word ^ generation,' it is attempted to rebut the force of the 
natural construction, and make it harmonize with an ac- 
complishment that should first ensue hundreds or thousands 
of years after the lifetime of the disciples. But after all 
it is impossible to explain away the native and genuine im- 
port of the phrase. It is only by the most downright violence 
that we can elicit from the words any thing but the declara- 



200 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

tion that the event predicted should occur, or rather should 
begin to occur, in the term of the natural lives of the then 
existing generation of men, and consequently that the event, 
whatever it vi^ere, did thus occur w^ithin the period specified ; 
that is, that there was, in some sense, a glorious coming of 
Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the abrogation 
of the Jewish state. But it does not follow from this that 
the purport of the entire series of prophecies contained in 
the 24th and 25th of Matthew was exhausted in that event ; 
for he says in the same connexion, in the parallel prediction 
of Luke, that Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot of the 
(Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled ; and this 
carries us over a long tract of centuries before we reach 
the period of the full accomplishment. 

The preceding remarks may, perhaps, be considered as 
having levelled an avenue of approach to the true view of 
the apostle's language. He has faithfully and unerringly 
announced that part of the divine councils which relates to 
the transformation of the living saints at the period referred 
to, whatever that period may be. He has informed us that 
they shall undergo a change equivalent to that which ac- 
crues to the risen, i. e. the re-living dead. He undoubtedly 
supposed that this change was to occur simultaneously with 
that promised advent of the Saviour that was to be ushered 
in during the lifetime of that generation — a supposition 
built upon the letter of numerous predictions, but which the 
event has shown to be, in this respect, erroneous. The fact 
that forms the burden of the announcement has not yet 
taken place, but is of still future occurrence. It is to come 
to pass at the period so frequently alluded to in the prophets, 
as to be distinguished by something that is here termed 
the 'sounding of the last trumpet;' and as this is doubtless 
identical with the last in the series of the seven Apocalyp- 
tical trumpets. Rev. 11. 17, which announces the downfall of 
earthly dominion, and the kingdoms of this world becoming 
the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, it is clear that it 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 201 

cannot refer to what is technically termed the ' end of the 
world/ so far as that phrase is understood to imply the phys- 
ical destruction of the globe. For the sounding of the 
seventh trumpet is not a signal of the close, but rather of the 
commencement of that last grand phasis of the kingdom of 
Christ, which is the theme of the most enrapturing strains of 
all the prophets. During the continuance of this period, 
over the whole of which the trumpet may be considered as 
sounding, this process of translation and resurrection will be 
illustriously going on. To each individual subject of the 
sublime transformation, it will be effected in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye, though ages may intervene before the 
number of the translated is complete. We do not perceive 
that the words necessarily imply a simultaneous translation, 
nor for the same reason do the words that follow strike us 
as necessarily enforcing the idea of a simultaneous resurrec- 
tion. This certainly cannot be maintained without previ- 
ously fixing the period in question down to a mere compar- 
ative punctum temporis, and we hesitate not to affirm that it 
is impossible to do this but upon principles that will inevi- 
tably convert the whole department of Scriptural Eschatology 
into a chaotic mass of contradictions. We are, for our- 
selves, perfectly satisfied that in the scheme of revelation 
the curtain drops upon the human race in the mid-career of 
its evolving destiny. The predictions of Daniel land us in 
the everlasting kingdom of the saints, established upon the 
whole earth, and under the whole heavens. The disclosures 
of the Apocalypse conduct us into the bosom of the New 
Jerusalem state, equally established upon the earth, and 
there leave us. Nothing in our view is clearer than that 
the events commonly assigned to what is termed, by one of 
the grossest philological errors, ^^ the end of the world, '^ i. e. 
as implying the physical conflagration of the globe, do, in 
fact, occur at the commencement, and not at the close of 
the grand Sabbatism of the world — for it has no close: i. e. 
none revealed. God, the Omniscient, alone knows through 



202 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

what untold centuries of time this jubilee of the earth shall 
stretch. That particular passages may here and there be 
cited, which seem, according to the strictness of the letter, 
to sound a signal of physical catastrophe and doom to the 
terraqueous globe, is doubtless true. But the general drift of 
prophecy is plainly the reverse ; and though we may be un- 
able at present to solve satisfactorily all the problems con- 
nected with the subject, yet we have no doubt that they are 
actually solvable, and that the time will at length come 
when they shall excruciate criticism no longer. 

In the mean time let no man suppose he can reject the 
view^ now suggested, and fall back upon one that is free 
from equal or greater difficulties. Adopt what theory we 
may, we shall find ourselves encompassed with straits of 
exegesis which we can only fail to perceive by voluntarily 
closing our eyes to their existence. The single declara- 
tion of the Apocalypse, *^ The leaves of the tree shall be for 
the healing of the nations (Gentiles), '^ leaves all the common 
theories of the future at fault, because they afford no solu- 
tion of the problem, * What Gentile nations remain to be 
healed in heaven V 

In relation to the central point of the present discussion, 
we abide, with unshaken confidence, by a conclusion to 
which we deem ourselves brought through a process of the 
strictest and fairest logical and philological reasoning. If 
we overrate not the force of our arguments, we have shown 
that the objections to the theory of the resurrection of the 
body are insuperable. If they are so regarded by the re- 
flecting mind, it must of necessity adopt some other con- 
struction of the passages of holy writ which seem to counte- 
nance it. That which is false to true Philosophy cannot be 
true to true Faith. 

It thus then appears that the scope of this celebrated 
chapter, when submitted to a fair and thoroughgoing exe- 
gesis, fails to yield any satisfactory evidence of the doctrine 
of the resurrection of the body. But if the doctrine be 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 2G3 

not found here, where else in the New Testament is-it to be 
found ? We shall nevertheless continue our inquest. 

Mat. V. 29, 30. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

El ds 6q)d'cdfA,6g aov 6 ds^i- And if thy right eye offend 

i g axavdali^ei ce, e^sls av- ^^^^^ P^uck it out, and cast it 

V wj '1 ' ^ ~ . ' from thee : for it is profitable 

rov y.ai Bale ano aov ovuwe- r^„ +i^^^ .i + r- K 

, ^ f, 3 , '^^,, lor thee that one oi thy mem- 

qu yuQ aot, iva aTiolrjrat ev bers should perish, and not that 

T03V fxe7.cov aov, y,ai firj oXov thy w^hole body should be cast 

70 (Too/icc GOV p,r^d^ri elg yiev- into hell. 
vav. 

Kal el. ri de^id aov yeiP a-^av- , ^^^ if thy right hand offend 

xs -i ^y r , '^ 3^ ^ ^ thec, cut it Oil, aud cast it from 

daHei^ ae, exy.oipov avT^v y,ai ^^^^, ^^^ -^ -^ profitable for thee 

{ialeano^ aov . avixyQei. yuQ that one of thy members should 

aoi, ha anolrijai ev roov ^e- perish, and not that thy whole 

loov aov, Tioi fxi] olov to aoSfxd body should be cast into hell. 
aov ^li]-&ri elg yeevvav. 

The true bearing of this text upon the point at issue, as 
far as the letter is concerned, is obvious. If the body is to 
partake in the punishment of the soul in another life, the 
inference would seem to be irresistible, that it must be 
raised for the purpose ; and this is doubtless the sense which 
is usually put upon these words of Christ. But we cannot 
acquiesce in this construction, without a previous exact in- 
quiry into the import of the terms employed. The original 
word translated * hell' is ykrva^ Gehenna, derived from the 
Heb. tDisrj 2j<"'5 Ge-Hinnom, or valley of Hinnom, the well- 
known name of a place in the near vicinity of Jerusalem 
where dead carcasses and all manner of filth w-ere thrown, 
the putrefaction of which generated worms, and made it 
necessary to k-eep fires burning to prevent the tainting of 
the air, and the spread of pestilence. '^ The extreme loath- 
someness of the place, the filth and putrefaction, the cor- 
ruption of the atmosphere, and the lurid fires blazing by 
day and by night, made it one of the most appalling and 
terrific objects with which a Jew was acquainted. It was 



204 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

called '* the Gehenna of fire," and was the image which our 
Saviour often employed to denote the future punishment 
of the wicked." {Barnes on Matt. 5. 22.) So Mr. Camp- 
bell likewise says ** it came gradually to be used as an em," 
hlem of hell, or place of torment for the wicked in a future 
state." {Dissert, vol. i. p. 180.) Consequently if the term 
denotes an image — an emblem — of hell, or place of torment, 
it does not denote the place itself, and of that we must form 
our ideas from other sources. It is obvious, then that, our 
Lord's language in this passage is figurative, and does not 
of itself necessarily imply that the punishment of the wick- 
ed in another life will be effected by the action of material 
fire upon material bodies. In accommodation to the sensu- 
ous ideas of the Jews, he depicts a sensuous imagery, and 
the whole passage is evidently to be interpreted on this 
principle. If one part of it is to be taken in the strictness 
of the letter, every other is also, and consequently it fol- 
lows that if the body here literally means the body, the 
right eye means the right eye, and the right hand the right 
hand, and then we come to the conclusion, that entrance 
into heaven is facilitated by plucking out an eye and cut- 
ting ofif a hand. But will this be held ? Is so gross a 
sense to be put upon our Saviour's words ? If so, must we 
not hold to the counterpart of the notion, viz., that many 
enter heaven in their material bodies after having suffered 
the loss of several of the members? For thus it is said in 
the parallel passage of Mark, ch. ix. 43-47, '^ It is better 
for thee to enter into life maimed, — halt, — and with one 
eye, than having two hands, — feet, — and eyes, to be cast 
into hell-fire." What then does the passage, when viewed 
in connexion with the general tenor of the Scriptures, na- 
tively teach? '' Evidently," says Mr. Noble {Appeal^. 61), 
*^ the offending eye and hand are mentioned to denote cer- 
tain perverse propensities of the mind or spirit, from which 
alone all the organs of the body act ; and as certain organs 
of the body are thus put for certain disorderly functions of 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 205 

the mind or spirit, which is the real man, to carry on the 
figure, and to avoid the incongruity of a mixed metaphor, 
the whole body is naturally, and according to the strict laws 
of composition, put for the whole mind or spirit, and thus 
for the whole man as he exists after death." On a fair ex- 
amination, therefore, of the passage, the evidence which 
would be drawn from it of the resun^ection of the body 
completely vanishes out of sight. The same is the case in 
regard to the passage which follows. 

Mat. X. 28. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Ka\ fih cf'O^eiad^s ano roov And fear not them which kill 

^7TOXTHv6vTcov TO c^^ia, rh^v \^}f, ^^dy^ but are not able to 
^x X V 5, . ' 5 * Kill the Goul: but rather fear 

d3 Wvxr.v f,rj dvvafiercov ano- ^^^ ^.j^-^j^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ 

yiTHvar ^ cpo^i]&rjTS ds fAullov both soul and body in hell. 

70V dvrdf^svov y,at \pv)[fjv y.ai 

aoSua anoleaai h yhvvij. 

This is a passage of the same character with the pre- 
ceding, and demanding to be interpreted on the same princi- 
ple. Neither this, nor any other text, bearing upon the life 
after death, can be explained in disregard of the results 
which we have previously reached respecting the intrinsic 
and essential nature of the spiritual body in contradistinc- 
tion from the natural. If these results address themselves, 
upon their own evidence, with irresistible force to our con- 
victions, it is impossible that the mind, constituted as it is, 
can receive a declaration in conflict with them. We ad- 
mit, indeed, the possibility that our conclusions on this head 
may not be true. We would then simply affirm, thsit if thei/ 
are true, of which every one must judge for himself, they 
will imperatively govern our construction of particular pas- 
sages which carry a contrary import in their letter. In the 
present case, we do not hesitate to say, that our previous 
reasonings and expositions have at least so much the sem- 
blance of truth — they are so far from the character of 

10 



206 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

mere plausible sophisms and fallacies — that a candid judgment 
cannot disregard them in the estimate which it is led to form 
of the true sense of the Saviour's warning now under con- 
sideration. The leading scope of the passage is, that there 
was a destruction in this world which was not at all to be 
feared in comparison with a destruction which was to be 
feared in the next world. But the destruction in both cases 
was of course to be of such a nature as corresponded with 
the conditions of being in each world. In this world it was 
a material body which might be killed; but as material 
bodies do not pertain to the spiritual world, the destruction 
there to be feared was such as mischt befall the bodies there 
possessed. But these were spiritual bodies, as we are else- 
where instructed ; though not expressly asserted, as it w^as 
not necessary it should be, in the present connexion. Thus 
understood, the words present no difficulty, except to one 
who would educe from them a proof of the resurrection of 
the body. 

Mat. XXII. 31, 32. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Ueqi ds rtjg amaTuaewg But, as touching the resur- 

foiv ny.Q6iv om avey^cots jo rectionof the dead, have ye not 

< o,^ e^ ^ 5 X ~ Q. "^ 1 ' i^^ad that which was spoken 

5y/i/c#' v^vy t^/*u ^uu i/ou /. unto you by God, saymg, 

yovzog' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I am the God of Abraham, 

'Eyco Eifii 6 '&8bg '^^Qaccfi and the God of Isaac, and the 

nal 6 '&Eog 'laaavi yial 6 S^sog God of Jacob ? God is not the 

"laac^B; om sariv 6 <d^ebg ^eog f^^d of the dead, but of the 

ifBTlQOOV, a Ala L,G)V1(0V. 



livino:. 



We have already given, in a previous extract from Dr, 
Dwight (p. 148), to which we beg the reader's renewed 
reference, an exposition of this passage so clear and self- 
evidencing, that we might perhapg properly spare ourselves 
any farther attempts at its elucidation, But a ^ew remarks 
may be added, And we would especially desire attention 
to the fact, that the true question in debate is tH resurrec- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 207 

tion of the dead — ** but as touching the resurrection of the 
dead, have ye not read," &c., (Luke, ^' But that the dead 
are raised, Moses showeth," &.c.) This the Sadducees 
denied, and this the Saviour intended to affirm. Now it is 
obvious that if the term * resurrection,' in its correct usage 
in the Gospels and the New Testament generally, denotes 
the resurrection of the hody^ we cannot deem ourselves at 
liberty to depart from that sense in the present instance. 
Not the slightest evidence appears that our Lord intended 
to use the term in any other than its common and well- 
known acceptation. If its ordinary use implies the resur- 
rection of the body, it doubtless implies it here. But if 
that be the true sense, it is equally obvious that our Lord's 
argument is not an explicit, pointed, and direct refutation of 
the Sadducees' error ; for how does the fact that the spirits 
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now living, prove the re- 
surrection of their bodies ? In fact, this concession is made 
by multitudes of commentators who adopt the common view 
of the meaning of the word avaajaaig, resurrection. Thus 
the learned Dr. Hody {Resur, of Same Body Asserted) re- 
marks : ** The most that this argument proves is the immor- 
tality of the soul — that the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, did not die with their bodies, as the Sadducees be- 
lieved.'' So Mr. Barnes (in loc.) : '^ It more distinctly re- 
fers to the separate existence of the soul, and to a future 
state of rewards and punishments, than to the resurrection of 
the body." Writers of this class consider the passage as 
simply teaching by inference the resurrection of the body ; 
i. e. if the spirits of ihe patriarchs are d\\\enow^ their bodies 
will be hereafter. But we not only dissent from this inter- 
pretation ; we remonstrate against it. We contend that it 
is a violent wresting of a word from its plain, natural, ob- 
vious sense, in order to make it subserve the purposes of a 
different and preconceived theory. If there is a palpable, 
we had almost said an unmistakable, averment in the com- 
pass of holy writ, it is, that the true doctrine of the resur- 



208 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

rection is proved from the fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, were living when Christ spake these words, and con- 
sequently must have been raised^ and must be living in resur- 
rection-bodies. Otherwise, as Dr. Dvvight remarks, '* the 
declaration concerning them is no proof of the resurrec- 
tion." What kind of resurrection is that in which nothing 
is raised? But their bodies certainly had not been raised; 
and can the sun in the heavens be more obvious to the 
senses than the conclusion to the mind, that the * resur- 
rection of the dead,' as here affirmed by the Saviour, has no 
reference whatever to the resuscitation of dead bodies 7 And 
are we not justified in maintaining, that the only resurrec- 
tion of the dead ever to be experienced by man, is that of 
which these patriarchs have long since been the subjects ? 
Is there more than one kind of resurrection ? Does not our 
Lord^s language establish this as the genuine and legitimate 
sense of the term? Is it not exactly tantamount io future 
state? By what authority then is the term appropriated, 
contrary lo this high sanctioned usage, to express entirely 
another idea? The effect of this argument, we are told, 
was completely to quash the skeptical cavils of the Saddu- 
cees, and the Pharisees exulted to see them '^ put to silence.'' 
The ' astonishment,' moreover, of the bystanders, at the 
wisdom, at the divine sagacity, displayed in the reply, shov»^s 
that they regarded it as a signal logical triumph : and on the 
view now suggested we are conscious of sharing in their 
emotions. We see that it perfectly met the point. Fortified, 
as they supposed, by the silence of Moses on the subject, 
they denied a future state. By a single appeal to that very 
portion of the Scriptures which alone they regarded as au- 
thoritative, our Lord at once demonstrated ihe falsity of 
their position, and sealed their lips in ignominious silence. 
Would this have been the effect had they understood him 
as asserting the resurrection of the body ? Would they not 
at once have replied, *^ This is a shifting of the question ; 
this is not the point in debate. Our creed is, that the doc- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



S09 



trine o^ ^future state is not taught in the five books of the 
Law. Why not then answer us directly on that head?" 
And who can gainsay the reasonableness of the demand ? 
On the ground of our interpretation the dialectics of the 
Saviour are utterly unimpeachable. He says precisely what 
the occasion required him to say, and nothing else. His 
triumph therefore was complete.^ 



* Campbell's note upon this passage, which we had not read prior to 
writing the above, lends so strong a confirmation to our view of the 
Saviour's argument, that we do not scruple to adduce it. 

" The word dj/aorao-ii/, or rather the phrase dvdaTacnv row vekooov, is, in- 
deed, the common phrase by which the I'esurrection, properly so called, is 
denominated in the New Testament. Yet this is neither the only, nor 
the primitive import of the word duiiaruaig • it denotes simply being raised 
from inactivity to action, from obscurity to eminence, or a return to such a 
state after an interruption. The verb dviarrjixi has the like latitude of 
signification ; and both words are used in this extent by the wTiters of the 
New Testament, as well as by the Seventy. When applied to the dead, 
the word denotes, properly, no more than a renewal of hfe, in whatever 
manner this may happen. Nay, that the Pharisees themselves did not 
universally mean, by this term, the reunion of soul and body, is evident, 
from the account which the Jewish historian gives of their doctrine, as 
well as from some passages in the Gospel. To say, therefore, in English, in 
giving the tenets of the Sadducees, that * they deny the resurrection of 
the dead,' is, at least, to give a very defective account of their sentiments 
on this very topic. It is notorious, not only from Josephus, and other 
Jewish writers, but from what is said Acts 23. H, that they denied the 
existence (>f angels, and all separate spirits. But not only is the version 
here given {' no future life') a juster representation of the Sadducean hy- 
pothesis, at the same time that it is conformable to the sense of the word, 
but it is tl]e only version that makes our Lord's argument appear perti- 
nent and levelled against the doctrine he wanted to confute. In the 
common version they are said to deny the resurrection, that is, that the soul 
and body shall hereafter be reunited ; and our Lord brings an argument from 
the Pentateuch to prove — what ] not that they shall be reunited (to this it 
has not even the most distant relation), but that the soul survives the body, 
and subsists after the body is dissolved. This many would have admitted 
who denied the resurrection. Yet so evidently did it strike at the root of 
the scheme of the Sadducees, that they were silenced by it, and, to the 



3W 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



Mat. XXVII. 50-53. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

'O ds 'Irjaovg ndhv KQci^ag Jesus, when he had cried 

woovri ueydlri acpijxe to nvevua, ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^^ ^^^i^^j yielded 

T^-S 4 ' ^ ' up the ghost. 

Kai tdov, TO ^araTtBtaaj^a ^And, behold, the veil of the 

rov vaov E6xia&n ug dvo, a^o temple was rent in twain from 

avood^av acog Kdrco, ^ai rj yjj the top to the bottom ; and the 

iasLa&r], xccJ at nizQai iaxi- earth did quake, and the rocks 

G&t]aav • ^^^^ j 

Kal ra iivrifiaia dvEcp^d^t]- And the graves were opened, 

aav, Tiol nolla aco/iaza roov ^"d many bodies of the saints 

^eyioiiiri^ivcov dyicov nyh^ri ' ^^^^^^ ^^^P^' ^'^^^ > 

Kai i^eXd^ovreg sk rmv iivrj- And came out of the graves 

UE103V u8Ta rhv sveoaiv avrov after his resurrection, and went 

\>^^zi Q^^. r.^^ N /f r /-, mto the holy City, and appeared 

y^ai 8veq)anad'7]aav nokkoig. 



The doctrine of the resurrection, as a theory, might, at 
first blush, seem likely to receive light from actual cases of 
resurrection as a fact. But the recorded instances of this 
nature, both in the Old and New Testaments, were for the 
most part simply cases of the temporary reanimation of dead 
bodies, which had not seen corruption, and the subjects of 
which afterwards died, and their bodies turned to dust like 
all others. They afford so little aid, therefore, in our determi- 
nations on the general subject, that we have not deemed it 
necessary to advert to them in the course of our discussions. 
The present, however, is a case more in point, and is, on 
many accounts, altogether too important to be overlooked in 
this connexion. The event is one of the most remarkable 
in the whole New Testament history, and deserving of far 
more attention than it has usually received. We shall hope 

conviction of the hearers, confuted. Now this, I will take upon me to say, 
could not have happened, if the fundamental error of the scheme of the 
Sadducees had been barely the denial of the resurrection of the body, and 
not the denial of the immortality of the soul, or rather of its actual sub- 
sistence after death.'* 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 2il 

to present it in a somewhat new and interesting light— one, 
however, which will be seen to afford less countenance to 
the prevalent view of the subject than upon a casual perusal 
it might promise. 

Before proceeding, however, to this, there are are two re- 
marks which we deem it important to make : (1.) All con- 
jectures as to the particular persons raised on this occasion, 
are vain and fruitless. The Scriptures are silent on the sub- 
ject, and we can have nothing to say. (2.) All attempts to 
determine what became of the bodies which were now raised 
must necessarily be equally abortive. They were in the 
graves — they were raised : this is the extent of our infor- 
mation respecting them. 

In entering upon the consideration of the event itself, 
we observe, first, that the language of the text is to be espe- 
cially noted : noXla awfiaToi tojv xexoijjirjfisvcav aylcav ^]yigS^t], 
many bodies of saints that slept arose, A question of no 
small difficulty, as to the precise meaning of these words, is 
suggested by the fact, that although these bodies are said to 
have * arisen' at the time of the crucifixion, yet they did not 
come forth from the graves till three days afterwards ; and 
even then it does not clearly appear that this ' coming forth' 
is predicated of the bodies ; for the language is, xal i^sl&ovTsg 
ex Totv fxvr}^d(x)Vy fiSTcn ttjv eysgaiv ccvtov, elgijXd^ov elg rrv ay lav 
noXiv xal ivs(pavl(T&r]aav nolXoigy and having come forth from 
the graves after his resurrection, they entered into the holy 
city and appeared unto many, where it is not to be over- 
looked, that the participle i^sl&ovisg is in the masculine 
gender, whereas the previous noun, o-w^ara, bodies, is in the 
neuter. What then is precisely the effect denoted by the 
YeYhr]yeg&7], arose ? Or, in other words, what was the con- 
dition of these bodies, as distinguished from their previous 
condition, during the three days prior to the issuing forth of 
the persons (the ol i^el&ovjsg) from their tombs ? And was 
it these bodies that then came forth and appeared to those 
that saw them ? If so, why is the gender changed ? Why 



212 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

do we not read i'^sl&ovra instead of i'^el&ovTsgl These are 
points of very difficult solution, though liable to be over- 
looked by the mere reader of the English translation, which 
does not, because it could not, present the nicer shades of the 
original. The natural impression produced by the phrase 
' the dead bodies arose,' would doubtless be, that they were 
reanimated by the spirits which formerly inhabited them, and 
thus, from dead carcasses became living persons. But then 
it strikes us as exceedingly strange, that a multitude of living, 
conscious, intelligent persons should be abiding in their sep- 
ulchral habiliments, for the space of three days, in the tombs 
in which they had been deposited at death. And then, if 
they issued forth at the end of that time, and came into the 
city, and were recognized by great numbers of the inhabit- 
ants, as they must naturally have been, how happens it that 
such a stupendous miracle v/as never appealed to by the 
apostles, either in their preaching, as recorded in the Acts, 
or m their Epistles, nor is ever any where alluded to but in 
this single passage of Matthew ? Every one perceives the 
incident to be shrouded in a veil of mystery which he knows 
not how to pierce, nor can we assure the reader of being able 
to satisfy his questionings by any solution which we may offer 
— certainly not upon the common apprehensions of the sub- 
ject. Nevertheless, we have some suggestions to propose. 

And (1.) as to the import of the term {rj/8Q^ri) rendered 
* arose.' We find among the definitions given of the word by 
lexicographers, that of arising from a previous state of recum- 
bency, whether that of sitting or lying ; whether that of 
sickness, of sleep, or of death. The cases in which it is 
applied to rising from sleep appear to be the most pertinent 
to the present connexion, as the subjects of the act are ex- 
pressly said to have been ^ many of the saints that slept.' 
Thus it is said, Mat. 9. 24, 25, ' He said unto them. Give 
place ; for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they 
laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, 
he went in and took her by the hand, and the maid arose 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 213 

{t]y^Q^'>l)'' J^t would seem, then, that we are to recognize 
that kind o^ excitation which is put forth in raising a person 
from a state and posture of sleep to a state of wakefulness and 
activity. Some exciting or moving effect, therefore, was un- 
doubtedly produced, on the present occasion, upon the 
bodies reposing in the sepulchres. Still, for the reasons above 
suggested, it does not seem clear that they were, in the first 
instance, actually brought to life as Lazarus was, at the re- 
viving mandate of the Saviour uttered over his grave. Can 
we suppose that they were thus resuscitated, and subse- 
quently remained three days in the rocky repositories ten- 
anted before by their lifeless remains? On referring to the 
narrative, it is clear that the raising or exciting effect, 
whatever it was, was produced in connexion with the earth- 
quake : ** And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and 
the graves were opened, and many bodies of saints," 6lc. 
Now we can indeed conceive that in such a preternatural 
commotion, when the body of the earth about Jerusalem was 
fearfully shaken, and the solid rocks made to cleave asunder, 
and the sepulchral grottoes violently forced open, the tre- 
mendous concussion should have disturbed the contents of 
the tombs, raising some of the supine corpses into an erect 
posture, dislodging some from their niches on 'Hhe sides 
of the pit," and throwing them on the floor, and casting 
others nearly or quite out of th^ opened entrances of their 
dark abode. All these effects might have been visibly pro- 
duced, and in the general commotion of that awful period, the 
bodies thus displaced may have remained during the interval 
till the resurrection, when they may have miraculously dis- 
appeared at the time when, not the bodies but the saints, 
emerged from the graves and made their appearance in the 
holy city. This is the opinion of some commentators, but 
we are unable to assent to it.* To us the hypothesis is far 

* The " graves were opened at the Lord's crucifixion ; their tenants 
came forth after his resurrection ; ' consequently/ in the words of Dod- 

10* 



214 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

more probable, that the bodies disappeared immediately upon 
what is termed their ' rising, and were seen no more ; for 



dridge, ' the tombs stood open all the Sabbath, when the law would not 
allow any attempt to close them. What an astonishing spectacle ! espe- 
cially if their resurrection was not instantaneously accomplished, but by 
such slow degrees as that represented in Ezekiel's vision.' Astonishing 
indeed ! And how did the Jews evade the force of such a prodigy ] The 
sepulchre of Jesus was certainly found unclosed and empty : wherefore 
the chief priests bribed the soldiers to say, that his disciples stole the body 
while they slept. But to what purpose was this fiction, if a multitude of 
other graves were also thrown open, and the bodies which tenanted them 
lay disclosed, subject to the inspection of the crowds who would eagerly 
watch the progress of their revivification, from Friday afternoon till Sun- 
day morning, when they came forth and marched into the holy city 1 How 
could this be concealed? Was it pretended that the small band of disci- 
ples stole all these bodies likewise ? We do not find that any such fiction 
was in tMs case resorted to : and, indeed, in this case, no one could have 
believed it ; since these things were not done in a corner, but all that was 
passing in the graves was visible to every observer for more than thirty- 
six hours. How then did the Jews evade it % We do not find that they had 
any occasion to try to evade it ; for we do not find, from any other part of 
the gospel records, that either the friends of Christianity, or its enemies, 
or a single inhabitant of this world, knew any thing about the matter. 

" Is it not very extraordinary, that this resurrection of dead bodies 
should take place, and yet there should be no intimation as to what 
became of them afterwards 1 Did they, after having shown themselves, 
go and lie down again in their graves, to wait for the final ' resurrection at 
the last day V This, as the pious Doddridge obseiTes, ' one can hardly 
imagine.' Did they then, like Lazarus and the others raised by the Lord 
while in the world, continue to live on earth, in due time to die again ? 
This also, with Doddridge, ' one can hardly imagine, — ^because it is only 
said they appeared to them! Most, therefore, conclude, with the same 
writer, that ' they ascended to heaven, with, or after, our Lord:' for it would 
be impossible to suppose that they ascended before him. But what was done 
with them in the mean time 1 If thpy remained on earth for forty days, 
how could they escape observation ] how is it that all Jerusalem was not 
in commotion on account of the presence of such extraordinary visitors ? 
Dr. Doddridge supposes, that ' they were directed to retire to some soli- 
tude during the intermediate days, and to wait in devout exercises for their 
change ; for surely/ as he justly observes, ' had they ascended in the view 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 215 

the supposition is to us utterly incredible that these material 
bodies were the objects beheld by those to whom the subse- 
quent appearance was made. To the objections already 
urged against this supposition, we may add, that the term 
for ' appeared ' (ivscpoivh&rjaaif)^ is the proper term for the 
apparition of a spiritual being, whether angel or depart- 
ed spirit. This indicates that they were seen in vision, and 
not with the natural eye, which was not formed to take cog- 
nizance of spiritual bodies. 

(2.) But why, it may be asked, if the bodies did not ap^ 
pear, are they said to have been raised ? A sufficient rea- 
son, we think, may be assigned for this. The language of 

of others, the memory of such a fact could not have been lost.' Indeed, 
the affair of their ascension was conducted with such secresy, that it was 
not even witnessed by those who were admitted to witness the ascension 
of the Lord ; and, to make it a greater secret, Matthew himself does not 
inform us that it ever took place. 

" Now can any one suppose that a transaction which requires such im- 
probable conjectures to make it possible, ever literally occurred at all 1 
And whither could they ascend 1 What region was there in existence 
suited for the residence of resuscitated material bodies ? They who con- 
tend for a general resurrection of material bodies, find it necessary to pro- 
vide a material world for their abode. Thus Dr. Hody says, ' Perhaps, 
after all, our heaven will be nothing but a heaven upon earth, or some 
glorious solid orb created on purpose for us in those immense regions 
which we call heaven. It seems more natural to suppose, that since we 
are to have solid and material bodies, we may be placed, as we are in this 
life, on some soUd and material orb. — That, after the resurrection, we are 
to live for ever in a new earth, was, as Maximus tells us, the opinion of 
many in his time : and the same was asserted, in the third century, by St. 
Methodius, bishop of Tyre, in his treatise concerning the resurrection.* 
What then was to become of these resuscitated bodies of saints before 
this new earth was provided for them ? for they who thus believe the 
Scriptures literally, when they speak of a new heaven [or sky] and a new 
earth, must believe them literally also when they say, that this new heaven 
and new earth are not to be produced till the former heaven and the former 
earth have passed away. Prior to that event then, at least, a resuscitated 
material body would be in the situation either of a fish in the air, or of a 
bird under water: it could find no element suited to its state."— iVoSZc's 
Appeal, pp. 64, 65. 



216 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the Scriptures is constructed very much on the Y.a% oipiv 
principle, or in reference to the impressions made on the 
senses. This is peculiarly the case in the usus loquendi 
which has respect to the phenomena of life and death. 
When a person dies there is an apparent extinction of his 
being. Nothing but an inert mass of clay remains, and this 
we bury out of our sight. And although a moment's reflec- 
tion assures us that he still lives, as to his immortal part, in 
another sphere of existence, yet moulding our language ac- 
cording to sensible appearances, we say of a deceased friend, 
that we have deposited Jiim in the grave, and that he lies 
there awaiting the final recall to life. The same mode of 
speech undoubtedly obtains with the sacred writers. They 
speak both of dying and of living again in language drawn 
from sensible appearances ; and in describing an event like 
the present, where a visible phenomenon is the accompani- 
ment and the sign of an invisible one, we can scarcely im- 
agine any other form of expression in which to set it forth 
than the one here actually adopted. The true design of 
such an occurrence undoubtedly was to signalize the august 
event of the Saviour's death, resurrection, and ascension, 
by providing from among the trophies of the grave a fitting 
retinue, to grace his triumphal entry into heaven. As the 
redemption he had wrought by his sufferings was to avail to 
the deliverance of all his people, of all ages, from death, we can 
see a peculiar propriety in his thus giving an illustrious ear- 
nest of this result, in the circumstances of his own victory 
over death and the grave. Why should it not be shown, by 
a visible demonstration, that a sacrifice of sufficient value 
to unseal his own sepulchre and let the captive go free, 
should open those also of a portion of his saints, as a pledge 
of what would be done for the whole ? But bow could the 
true resurrection of spiritual bodies be attested, but by the 
resurrection of material bodies? As the invisible power of 
Jesus over the spirits of darkness which infest men's souls 
was evinced by his power over the demons that assaulted their 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 217 

bodies in the days of his flesh — the very end perhaps for which 
such possessions were then allowed — so in like manner was 
this visible awakening of dead bodies a speaking symbolic 
exhibition of a far more glorious work wrought in behalf of 
their emancipated spirits. And occurring as it did just at 
the moment when he expired on the cross, it show^ed that 
the power of his redemption, so far from being in abeyance 
at that awful crisis, was even then working in its divinest 
energy towards a multitude of his sleeping saints. Then, in- 
deed, was the proper hour for the visible effect which was 
wrought upon their bodies, in connexion with his dying 
groan — the rending of the rocks, the darkening of the sun — 
and the throes of nature convulsed ; but not then was the 
time for their true and invisible resurrection, for it was de- 
signed that '^ in all things he should have the pre-eminence ;*' 
he was to be raised as " the first-fruits of them that slept," 
he was to be '*ihe first-begotten from the dead," and it be- 
hooved not that the resurrection of the members should 
precede that of the Head. Accordingly the interval of three 
days elapsed before they came forth (the mere bodies were 
not they), and went" into the holy city and appeared in spir- 
itual vision to many of their brethren. On that same 
day our Lord ascended to heaven, and who can doubt that 
this very company of risen saints ascended with him, form- 
ing the celestial cohort which adorned his advent to the por- 
tals of what was in the truest sense the * holy city, the heav- 
enly Jerusalem V Indeed we can scarcely doubt that this is 
the more genuine and true-meant import of the ^ holy city,' 
into which the risen saints entered. We do not deny that tb-ey 
may have made their appearance, in the w^ay suggested, to 
some of the followers of Christ in the literal Jerusalem, but 
it must be admitted that the designation is a very singular 
one in this connexion, and seems to savor somewhat of the 
spirit of prophecy to which it is almost the appropriated title 
for the celestial Hierosolyma. 

This, as we understand it, is the true character of the 



218 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

wondrous event here recorded. It was, in the main, an in- 
visible resurrection of a multitude of the saints, ordained to 
honor the resurrection of the Saviour, with a more special 
and ultimate reference to the invisible glory of his ascension. 
It was not designed that he should enter heaven alone. An 
attestation was to be given to the countless ranks of celes- 
tial beings, of the efficacy of the Redeemer's atoning work. 
As he alone had opened heaven to their access, so he was 
destined to lead thither with him an immense company of 
disenthralled spirits, in spiritual bodies, as an assuring pledge 
of what should be accomplished from age to age for the 
rising remainder. 

We are well aware of the apparently confounding ques- 
tions which may be proposed on this view of the subject. If 
these saints had previously slept in God, had they not enter- 
ed into rest? — had they not, on our theory, really arisen? 
Were they not already existing, like Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, like Moses and Elias, in resurrection-bodies? How 
then can they be supposed to have first arisen at the resur- 
rection of Christ ? We reply, that we do not suppose that, 
strictly speaking, they did now first arise. No one can be- 
lieve that their spirits had been dormant with their bodies 
through the period that had elapsed since their death; and 
if they had existed in a conscious state, during that interval, 
they must have been happy; and if happy in a spiritual 
world, they must, we conceive, have been really subsisting 
in spiritual bodies. But let it be remembered that the de- 
sign was to put forth to the senses of men a visible effect — a 
demonstration to the outward eye, of a grand process that 
was going on in the spiritual world. It was the purpose of 
the Most High to evince, in some striking manner, the all- 
important fact, that the eternal and heavenly life of the Old 
Testament saints was as much connected with the redemp- 
tion-work of Jesus, as that of the saints of the New. And 
let any man frame to himself, if he can, any other mode of 
representing this fact, than one that should appear to indicate 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 219 

it as even then in the process of transpiring. Is it not a 
truth unquestionable, that the sainted souls of the former 
economy enter heaven by the merits of Christ ? Was not 
his resurrection and ascension as essential to them as it is to 
us? Was it not as important to bring their resurrection and 
glorification into connexion with his, as it is to bring ours 
into that connexion ? And how could this be externally 
evidenced to living men, but by some visible effect produced 
upon their visible bodies? The simple appearing of spirit- 
ual bodies might indeed have tended to this result, but it 
would not carry with it that conviction which would arise 
from some obvious connexion of the spiritual bodies with the 
material. As the event was ordered, every end was accom- 
plished, and this amazing incident stands as an irrefragable 
proof of the retrospective efficacy of the Saviour's restored 
life, to secure the spiritual and eternal life of those of his 
saints who had died before, as well as that of those who 
should live and die after him. What then is wanting to give 
this event a significancy of the vastest moment in the con- 
nexion in which it is introduced, while at the same time it 
affords no adequate proof of the general theory of the resur- 
rection of the body, but rather of the reverse ? 

And let us here remark, that we are not without strong 
impressions that Peter's allusion to Christ's going and 
** preaching to the spirits in prison," after he was put to 
death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, will yet re- 
ceive its solution from the very passage which we are now 
considering. The apostle's words certainly seem to intimate 
an occurrence that took place at the very time to which we 
are now adverting, and though we confess to a great diffi- 
culty in regard to the precise nature or object of the 
* preaching' mentioned, as also in respect to the subjects to 
whom it was addressed, as having been *' disobedient in the 
days of Noah," yet we still think the difficulty will be event- 
ually overcome, and the two events brought into perfect har- 



220 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

mony with each other,* The suggestion has occurred to us, 
that as the true sense of ' preaching ' {xriQvaao)) is simply 
'proclaiming,' the idea might be, that the Saviour's spirit 
went into the world of spirits, the common receptacle of all 
the departed, and there simply proclaimed or announced the 
fact of his having conquered death in dying, and of his being 
about to accomplish a glorious resurrection, which should be 
available to consummate the hopes of the patriarchs and saints 
who had died in the faith of a blessed immortality, which, 
as it depended upon Christ's redemption-work, could not be 
fulli/ enjoyed until he had lived, died, risen, and ascended. 
Into this vast assembly, therefore, of departed spirits, repre- 
sented as being in hades, or the under-world, his own spirit 
descended, and though the immense majority of them were 
the spirits of wicked men, such as were disobedient in the 
days of Noah, and who were to receive no benefit from his 
atonement, yet there were multitudes among them of a dif- 
ferent character, to whom the tidings announced would be 
tidings of great joy, and they, by their previous moral state, 
would be attracted to him, and thus made to share with him 
in the glory of his triumphal ascension into the highest hea- 

* " It is evident," says Bp. Horsley, '' that the descending into hell is 
spoken of as an action of the Lord, but as an action performed by him 
after he v^as dead and buried, and before he rose again. This, therefore, 
was an act of that part of the man which continues alive after death, that 
is, of the soul separated by death from the body, as the interment must 
be understood of the body apart from the soul. The dead body could no 
more go into hell than the living soul could be laid in the grave." Scrni. on 
1 Fet. 3. 19, 22. Our Lord certainly v/as not in hell, or hades, as here 
understood, in any sense, before his death, nor was he there after his 
resurrection. It follows, that in the interval between his death and his 
resurrection, his soul was in hell, and to this we think it unquestionable 
that the Psalmist's v/ords refer, Ps. 16. 10, " Thou wilt not leave my soul 
in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One (my body) to see corrup- 
tion." And then, if ever, it was, that he preached to the 'spirits in 
prison.' 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGL'MENT. 221 

vens, after the three days were expired. Bat, as in the days 
of Noah, out of the vast population of the globe then living, 
only eight souls were saved in the ark, so out of these count- 
less myriads of departed spirits, only a similar proportion, in 
comparison of the whole, may have been prepared to form 
the spiritual retinue of the King of saints. Of this number 
the bodies of a considerable portion were yet probably in a 
state of sufficient integrity lo be the subject of such a visi- 
ble change as should symbolically correspond with the pro- 
cess that was going on in the invisible world in relation to 
their spirits. While, therefore, the idea receives no coun- 
tenance that the Gospel, as a means of repentance and sal- 
vation, was thus preached to the lost spirits in the prison of 
hell, we can see, at the same time, if this view of the subject 
be correct, that there is some foundation for the ancient 
church doctrine of the limhus patrum^ where their souls 
were retained in a state of expectancy, looking for the ac- 
complished work of Christ's resurrection. 

When we consider the importance which is given to this 
doctrine in the theology of the primitive church, and the 
prominent place it holds in what is called the Apostles' 
Creed, in the article which asserts that he '* descended into 
hell (hades)," we can scarcely doubt that it is built upon 
some solid scriptural basis. In this we are confirmed by 
the sentiments which prevailed in the Jewish church re- 
specting the state of the departed righteous — sentiments un- 
doubtedly founded upon some passages of the Old Testa- 
ment, whatever were their true meaning. Thus they 
speak of the souls of the pious Israelites, as reposing under 
the throne of the divine glory, or the Shekinah, until 
the resurrection, and there awaiting a deliverance which 
is to be wrought for them by the Messiah, under the 
name of the Son of David. [Eisenmenger^s Ended. Ju- 
dent, Vol. II. p. 364 et inf ) These ideas w^ere derived 
from the apprehended import of certain passages of their 
Scriptures, upon which were built also the views enter- 



222 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

tained in the primitive church respecting Christ's descent 
into hell. A remarkable passage to this effect, is found in 
the apocryphal book of Jeremiah, quoted both by Justin 
Martyr and Irenaeus, of which we give a literal translation : 
*' The Lord, the God of Israel, hath called to remembrance 
his own deceased that have slept under the over-heaped 
dust of the earth, and hath descended unto them to preach to 
them the gospel of his salvation. '^ 

The only passage in the New Testament, containing a 
very express allusion to this event, is that above referred to 
in the Epistle of Peter. That there is an important truth 
of some kind involved in his words cannot be questioned; 
and if so, we are doubtless authorized to regard the senti- 
ment as sustained by other portions of the Scriptures, if 
we could succeed in ascertaining them. A doctrine of so 
much moment we can scarcely consider as resting alone upon 
a single isolated text. Upon what Scriptures, then, is the 
declaration of Peter grounded 1 If the fact be admitted, 
for which there appears to be abundant ground, that our 
Saviour's resurrection, had a retrospective as well as a pro- 
spective efficacy, and if this passage in Peter were actually 
designed to teach that doctrine, then it were reasonable to 
expect that we should find elsewhere interspersed through 
the sacred books equivalent intimations, which should easily 
resolve themselves into such a sense. As, however, the na- 
ture of the transaction, as well as its scene, is of necessity 
shrouded in a peculiar obscurity, from its lying within the 
sphere of the spiritual and not of the natural world, so a 
similar obscurity may be presumed to characterize the lan- 
guage that sets it forth. Walking in a land of shadows, we 
may well suppose that only a dim and misty light should 
shine upon its aerial tenants. Still we shall perhaps find 
intimations of which we little thought. 

Let us again recur to our assumed fact ; which is, that 
the souls of the departed saints under the old economy had 
not entered into the full fruition of celestial joys, but were 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 223 

held, or as it were detained, in a state of expectancy, await- 
ing the death and resurrection of Christ, as an event which 
was to usher in to them a signal epoch of enlargement and 
consummation while, at the same time, it secured to him the 
prerogative of having in all things the pre-eminence, and 
especially of being the ^' first-fruits of them that slept." 
We say, if this be a real doctrine of revelation, we are au- 
thorized to look for the traces of it in a variety of texts. 
In quest of these we turn first to the Old Testament, waving 
for the present all reference to the sentiments of the Chris- 
tian Fathers, who are very unanimous in holding the doc- 
trine, and whose language is clear and unequivocal in pro- 
portion to their antiquity. Their testimony will be seen 
recited at great length in Pearson on the Creed. 

The 68th Psalm has ever been regarded by commenta- 
tors as mystically shadowing forth the august event of 
Christ's resurrection and ascension — an idea which re- 
ceives a direct warrant from the apostle's words, Eph. 4. 
8-10: ** Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on 
high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 
(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descend- 
ed first into the lower parts of the earth 1 He that de- 
scended is the same also that ascended up far above all 
heavens, that he might fill all things.)" He then goes on 
to speak of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, &c., 
as among these ascension-gifts of Christ. The phrase 
which more particularly demands attention is that which 
asserts the * leading of captivity captive,' which might seem 
to receive its more fitting explanation from the idea now 
suggested of the deliverance, the emancipation, of those who 
were held as a multitude of expectant detenus under a kind 
of captivity previous to the event here celebrated. This 
would appear to be confirmed by the explanatory descant of 
the apostle, whose language is certainly very germane to 
that of Peter, supposing him also to have the same time 
and the same event in view, as the Hades of the Scrips 



224 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

tures is reo^arded as constitutincr the under-ivorld. We are 
aware that the expression, * descended into the lower parts 
of the earth,' is often interpreted simply of Christ's descent 
from heaven to the earth and his becoming incarnate on the 
earth, and in a word, of his whole humiliation, terminating in 
his death and burial. But from the peculiar connexion in 
which it here occurs, and from a parallel phraseology else- 
where (Is. 44. 23. Ezek. 26. 20 ; 31. 14. Ps. 63. 10, 11), 
we cannot conceive that any violence is done to the lan- 
guage by adopting Theophylact's interpretation : '* It is 
manifest that he who was above, not only descended into 
the earth, when he became incarnate, but also into hades, 
when he died." But if he descended into hades, it must, 
we think, have been for the purpose intimated by Peter, to 
free a portion of its inhabitants from some kind of captivity • 
and this brings the passage into perfect harmony with what 
would seem to be the drift of the Psalmist. But let us here 
repeat, that the design of this descent to the world of spirits, 
was not to preach repentance or procure salvation for lost 
souls, but merely to announce the just impending event of 
the resurrection and ascension to the departed saints who 
had long been expecting it, and to provide himself from that 
number with a countless retinue who were to accompany 
him to heaven, and in reference to whom the Psalmist says 
again, ^' The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, 
in the holy place." These redeemed spirits were now in 
an angelic state, and therefore called by that appellation. 
Such seems to be a fair and probable interpretation of this 
scripture; and it is certainly not a little interesting to find 
it thus capable of being brought into close relation with the 
passage in Peter, and through that with the evangelical in- 
cident of the raising of the ' many bodies of saints that 
slept.' The evidence of the truth of the exegesis will pro- 
bably retain its strength in the mind of the reader, if he 
keeps distinctly in view the moral scope of the transaction, 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. xMo 

which was to unite in one point the results of Christ's mediu- 
tion in regard to the Old and the New Testament saints — 
to show that his resurrection was available to the resurrec- 
tion and eternal heavenly life of both these grand depart- 
ments of the church. In this view the rending of the veil 
of the Temple, which took place in immediate connexion 
with the quickening of the sleeping saints, will perhaps as- 
sume a new significancy, as it seems to indicate the making 
one of what had before been two ; although the incident 
may have had a still wider reach of typical import. 

Another passage which may perhaps be best explained 
on the ground of this idea is the following : Mic. 2. 13, 
'^ The breaker is come up before them ; they have broken 
up and passed through the gate, and are gone out by it ; and 
their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head 
of them.'' This is very appropriate to the idea of a victo- 
rious leader, a spiritual Samson, who demolishes the gates 
of Hades, and leads forth in triumph its incarcerated or de- 
tained captives, forming them into a splendid procession, of 
which he puts himself at the head. 

The following extracts from the Rabbinical writers dis- 
cover a view of the subject very nearly akin to this, though 
mixed up with a vein of mysticism through which, as is very 
often the case with their extravagances, there gleams a 
golden thread of truth. ''And R. Joshua Ben Levi said, 
I went with the angel Kipphod, and came to the gates of 
hades^ and there went with me Messias, the son of David. 
And when the prisoners who were in Gehenna saw the 
light of Messias, they rejoiced on receiving him, saying. He 
will bring us out from this obscurity, as it is said, Hos. 
13. 14, * I will redeem them from hades, I will free them from 
death!' And thus saith Isaiah, 35. 10, 'The redeemed of 
the Lord shall return and come to Zion [" Bereshith Rah- 
ha ad Gen. 24. 67. The same work on Gen. 44. 8, adds, 
*' This is what is written, Cant. 1.4,* We will rejoice and 
be glad in thee.' When ? When the captives shall ascend 



226 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

from hades, and the Shekinah at their head, as it is written 
Mic. 2. 13, * And their king shall go forth before them, and 
the Lord on the head of them.' " Again, in the Emelc 
Hammelek, fol. 188, it is said, " The son of David shall 
pass over it (Gehenna) to set them free.''* 

Another passage which is perhaps to be construed in the 
same sense, is Is. 53. 8 : ** He was taken from prison and 
from judgment ; and who shall declare his generation ?" 
These words have always been regarded as presenting 
greater difficulties to the expositor than those of any other 
verse in the chapter. So far as they relate to the earthly his- 
tory of the Messiah, it is conceded that he was never literally 
in prison, and consequently could not be said to have been 
taken from prison. Some other sense must be affixed to the 
clause. The original word "^'^ib properly signifies confine^ 
merit or restraint upon liberty, and is therefore in itself pe- 
culiarly appropriate to the idea of that state of detention 

* It seems capable of proof that this state, from which the expectant 
souls of the Old Testament saints were delivered by Christ, is the state 
of which the term Paradise is more properly to be understood, as a state 
of real but imperfect happiness. Accordingly, we see in this the ground 
of our Saviour's assurance to the dying thief, that he should that day be 
with him in Paradise ; not in heaven, to which it does not appear that he 
ascended till after his resurrection. This would bring the dying thief into 
the train of the ascending Saviour, and it does not seem probable that he 
would promise him an entrance into heaven before he entered there him- 
self. 

On the view here exhibited, the doctrine of an intermediate state, 
subsequent to the resurrection of Christ, must be considered to vanish quite 
away. The sentiments of the primitive Christian fathers on that subject 
appear to have been based upon Scriptural intimations, Vv^hich have respect 
only to those who lived under the former dispensation. To them there 
was indeed an intermediate state betv/een death and the resurrection, i. e. 
the resurrection of Christ ; but we are unable to perceive upon what 
grounds such a state can be maintained in reference to the saints of the 
New Testament era. We think the reader will share deeply in our ina- 
bility on this score, if he admits the justness of our reasonings in the chap- 
ter on the * Connexion between the Resurrection and the Judgment.' 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 227 

which is in Peter predicated of the waiting spirits to whom 
in his descent to the under-world he preached or made his 
announcement. We know too, as a matter of fact, that it 
was from this place as the terminus a quo^ that he ascended 
to glory. Now it is remarked by Vitringa that the original 
word for taken (ng^) is the very word which is elsewhere 
used in reference to that kind of assumption of which our 
Lord was made the subject when he ascended to heaven. 
Thus it is said of Enoch, Gen. 5. 24, that " he was not, for 
God took (ngb) him. So also of Elijah, 2 Kings 2. 3, 
*' Knowest thou that the Lord will take away (H)?.'^) thy 
master from thy head to-day V^ Thus also the Psalmist, Ps. 
49. 15, *' But God will redeem my soul from the power of 
the grave (Sheol, Hades) : for he shall receive me ('^?f?i5'l)." 
Ps. 73. 24, '' Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and 
afterward receive me {'^?ni;^) to glory." '* The older inter- 
preters,'* says Hengstenberg (in loc), ** for the most 
part refer these words to the glorification. They take 
's^.ifrom, not as causative, but in the sense of out of, and 
translate the verb np^ either by to rescue, to deliver, 
or by to take up, to take away, namely, to God. So the 
Vulgate, ' De angustia et judicio sublatus est.' Jerome on 
the passage says, * De tribulatione atque judicio ad pa- 
trem victor ascendit.' Joh. H. Michaelis, * Exemptuset ad 
dextram majestatus assumptus est.' " These * older inter- 
preters ' we think have come nearer the truth than some of 
their modern successors. The Greek equivalent for ni?^, 
icas taken, is avslTJcp&r]^ was received, or taken up, which oc- 
curs repeatedly in reference to Christ's assumption to glory. 
(Mark 16. 19. Acts 1. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 16.) In the latter of 
these passages, 1 Tim. 3. 16, in the apostle's condensed 
summary of the various items constituting the 'great mys- 
tery of godliness,' he says, " God was manifest in the flesh, 
justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the 
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory ;^^ 
where the circumstance of his being * seen of angels,' prob- 



228 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

ably refers to the event we are now considering, as it is 
unquestionable that the term ' angels' is frequently applied 
to the disembodied spirits of good men. Thus far, then, 
the prophet's language seems to admit an easy reference to 
the descent and the assumption of which we are now speak- 
ing, and we see no objection that can be urged to this view 
of his meaning, unless it be in the very slight and cursory, 
or, as we may say, perfunctory, style of the allusion. It is, 
as it were, but glanced at in the prophetic narrative, and 
immediately followed, as it is preceded, by the mention of 
particulars relating to his visible history on earth. But 
from the nature of the event itself, and from the general 
tenor of other allusions to it, this is perhaps all that was 
to be expected. Indeed, if we mistake not, this very char- 
acter of obscurity is hinted at in the connexion itself The 
words immediately ensuing are, " But who shall declare his 
generation?" The original nn itli*! ^53 ini'n rni<i Gesenius 
and others render, ** And who of his contemporaries shall 
consider ?" i. e. who of his people shall duly reflect upon, ap- 
preciate, and understand this circumstance of his mediatorial 
work ; as if it were something v/hich should only at a late 
period be rightly apprehended in all its bearings. We are 
aware that other senses have been and may be very plausibly 
ascribed to these w^ords, nor do we presume to vouch for the 
correctness of that we have now suggested ; yet as it may be 
legitimately deduced from the language, it acquires verisimil- 
itude in proportion to the evidence, that we have rightly 
interpreted what precedes.* 



* Of the other interpretations which have been proposed of this clause, 
we give the preference to that w4iich makes •^i':^ generation equivalent to 
life, or duration of life, implying, in a large sense, the glorious eternal 
life of the risen Redeemer, with all its phenomena and effects. Thus it 
is afterwards added, v. 10, 11, " He shall see his seed ; he shall prolong 
his days.'' Again, it is said of the king Messiah, Ps. 21. 5, " He asked 
life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever. "^ 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 229 

As to the connected term ^judgment' — ' was taken from 
prison and from judgment' — there is no difficulty in under- 
standing it o{ favorable judgment or acquittal^ which is a fre- 
quent Scriptural sense of the term, and in this relation de- 
notes the auspicious result of the preaching or announcing, 
which was the object of this benign visitation to the detain- 
ed and expectant spirits of hades. The benefit procured 
for them was accomplished in a way of obedience to law, 
and by the bringing in of an accepted righteousness, and is, 
therefore, properly denominated 'judgment.' 

To the above catalogue of Scriptural testimonies to the 
important dogma of the descent into hades, for the enlarge- 
ment of a portion of its waiting spirits, may, perhaps, be 
added that of several of the types of the Old Testament. 
The case of Joseph releasing one of his fellow-prisoners, 
during his own incarceration, may be thought, if it have any 
bearing in this direction, to be less decisive than that of 
Jonah, which our Lord himself brings in some way into a 
symbolical relation with his own invisible state during the 
three days of his sojourn in the bowels of the earth. If 
such a significancy as we have hinted at may be allowed in 
this remarkable incident in Jonah's history, we are perhaps 
to regard the prayer uttered in his sub-aqueous imprison- 
ment as embodying the substance of the virtual supplica- 
tions of the expectant souls of the under-world for that de- 
liverance which was so signally shadowed forth by the pro- 
phet's issuing forth, on the third day, from the' belly of hell.' 
It is, at any rate, impossible to explain away a typical coin- 



Thus, too, in speaking of himself. Rev. 1. 18, " I am he that liveth, and 
was dead ; and behold, / am alive for evermore J' With this accords the 
language of the Apostle, Heb. 7. 16, " Who is made (an high priest), not 
after the law of a carnal commandment, hut after the power of an endless 
life.'' According to this, the purport of the words is. Who shall duly 
understand, weigh, and estimate aright that glorious and endless life upon 
which the Messiah shall enter, upon his release from the bonds of death, 
upon his emergence from the under-world of souls ? 

11 
# 



230 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

cidence of some kind between this event in Jonah's life and 
the condition of our Lord daring the same space of time 
immediately subsequent to his crucifixion, and at the very 
time, too, when, if ever, he performed the work which the 
Scriptures ascribe to him in behalf of the sainted spirits of 
hades. 

But a type of still directer reference to the event in ques- 
tion is perhaps to be recognized in the remarkable rite pre- 
scribed iB the purification of the leper, Lev. 14. 4-7, by 
which one of the two clean birds employed on that occasion 
was commanded to be set at liberty to fly into the open 
field. The two birds have apparently a typical reference to 
a twofold subject, the one representing a slain, the other 
a living and reZe^sec? subject ; and if the one be supposed 
to point to Christ as the sacrificial victim, it is possible that 
the other may denote a class of those who are the beneficia- 
ries of his atonement, and receive a gracious enlargement 
from some kind of thraldom in consequence of it, and at 
the very time of the sacrifice, for the living bird was to be 
dipped in the blood of the dead one, and immediately io be let 
loose in the air. May not this more suitably represent the 
reality to which we now refer it than any other? Of the 
two goats which were slain on the day of atonement we 
have, we think, shown in our Notes on Lev. 16th, that the 
scape-goat denoted anothers ubject than Christ, and, if so, 
why may not the scape-bird denote something else ? 

But without insisting upon allusions which are of neces- 
sity somewhat remote, we may, we think, plausibly claim to 
have shown that the remarkable passage relative to Christ's 
descent into hades is sustained by the unimpeachable testi- 
mony of holy writ ; and if we do not misjudge, the same ev- 
idence which establishes this establishes also the fact, that 
the event is to be viewed in the closest connexion with the 
resurrection of the bodies of the sleeping saints at tlie cru- 
cifixion. This is the gist of the position, as far as we are 
concerned with it. As the view has been presented, it is 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 231 

divested of all that drapery of extravagance which ecclesias- 
tical antiquity has thrown around it, and it is seen standing 
aloof from all connexion with the dogma of purgatorial pen- 
ance. Contemplated in this relation, it is not surprising 
that it should have been rejected from the theology of an 
enlightened age. But when surveyed purely as a doctrine 
of revelation, and freed from the additaments of superstition 
and priestcraft, it comes before us as one of the most inter- 
esting features of that divine system of redemption which 
binds up in one bundle of blessing the eternal destiny of all 
the saints. 

It now remains briefly to view the present passage in 
connexion with one or two other Scriptures, upon which it 
will be found, if we mistake not, to shed great light. And 
first, we regard this incident in the Gospel narrative as a 
legitimate primary fulfilment of the prediction of Daniel, 
ch. 12. 2, " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the 
earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." We have already, in our 
previous exposition of this passage (p. 131), given our rea- 
sons for translating these words as follows : " Many out of 
those sleeping in the dust of the ground shall awake : those 
(who awake), (shall be) to everlasting life; those (who do 
not awake), (shall be) to shame and everlasting contempt." 
This event, as we learn from the preceding verse, is to occur 
at a period v/hen " Michael shall stand up, the great prince 
that standeth for the children of the peoi)le ; and there shall 
be a time of trouble, such as there never was since there 
was a nation, even to that same time; and at that time thy 
people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found writ- 
ten in the book." This ' time of trouble' is to be taken in 
a large sense, including the calamitous period of the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, of which our Saviour himself says, Mat. 
24. 21, " There shall be great tribulation, such as was not 
since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever 
shall be." This clearly identifies the periods, for there can- 



232 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

not be two epochs, both of which shall exclude all parallels 
in the way here described, as this would be to exclude each 
other. Michael is here, as in Rev. 12, the mystical or pro- 
phetical designation of the Messiah, and his ' standing for 
the children of thy people,' denotes his providential agency 
in the disastrous events of that great crisis. The ' awaking 
of many from the dust of the earth,' has, undoubtedly, an 
involved reference to the * deliverance of those that were 
written in the book,' i. e. the book of life, or preservation, 
of which the literal awaking of the sleeping saints was a 
sensible adumbration. It is no real objection to this exege- 
sis, that in the one case it seems to be affirmed that a part of 
the sleepers arose to ^ shame and everlasting contempt,' 
whereas in the other it is only asserted that * many bodies of 
the saints ' arose. We have already seen that in the former 
case a resurrection, in the true sense, is not really affirmed 
of the wicked. They remained unawakened, and there is 
nothing in the expressions rightly understood to prevent the 
two passages being brought into entire parallelism. Ey 
viewing them in this relation to each other, the difficulties 
usually felt in regard to the fulfilment of Daniel's oracle, are 
done away. It is assuredly something which is to take 
place in a time of trouble, that, as we have seen, answers 
only to the end of the Jewish state, and the destruction of 
Jerusalem. What then can it mean but the very thing 
which we have affirmed 'I The only point difficult of con- 
cession is, that it brings the crucifixion and resurrection of 
Christ within the period of Jerusalem's calamities. But let 
it be considered, that the prediction was uttered hundreds of 
years before the events occurred, and when we allow for the 
extended sweep of prophecy, which necessarily oftentimes 
groups together events separated by very considerable inter- 
vals of time, we see nothing improbable in the idea, that the 
whole period of Christ's earthly sojourning, and the final ca- 
tastrophe of the Jewish metropolis, may be included in the 
range of the prediction. For the present, then, we have no 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 233 

difficulty in the conclusion, that the ^sleepers in the dust/ in 
both cases, are the same, and that while a temporal deliver- 
ance of those who were ' written in the book,' is, in fact, 
intended, the prophecy received at the same time a literal 
fulfihnent as an outward sign of the other, in the event that 
took place at the crucifixion. 

To the same event, in an emphatical sense, we are in- 
clined to refer our Lord's words, John 5. 25 : '^ Verily, 
terily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, 
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God : and 
they that hear shall live." It is by no means necessary to 
exclude from this reference the various cases of resuscitation 
mentioned elsewhere in the evangelists, as that of Lazarus, 
the daughter of Jairus, and the young man of Nain. Nor 
do we refuse to recognize the sense of a moral or spiritual 
resurrection as the effect of the preaching of the life-giving 
doctrines of the Gospel. But no one, we think, can fail to 
perceive a most striking adaptation in the words themselves 
to the circumstances of the resurrection we are now consid- 
ering. It was an event to be effected, in a peculiar man- 
ner, by the ' voice' ((jpcor?J) of the Son of man ; and accord- 
ingly it is said, Mat. 27. 50-52, '^ Jesus, when he had cried 
again with a loud voice (cpcorf] iieydh])^ yielded up the ghost. 
And, behold, the vail of the temple was rent in twain, from 
the top to the bottom ; and the earth did quake, and the 
rocks rent." This voice, while it was the last effort of his 
own expiring breath, was, to the sleeping dust of the saints, 
the reviving fiat which spoke them into supernatural anima- 
tion, and thus symbolically exhibited the new-creating energy 
that was to flow from his doctrines in connexion with his 
death. It is by illustrations of this nature that we see how 
wondrously the framework of revelation is dove-tailed 
too^ether. 



234 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

John V. 28, 29. 



ENG. VERS. 



M// d^avixd^eTS rovto ' ort Marvel not at this : for the 

toYszai cooa, Iv v Tzdvzeg ol ^'^^^^ ^^ coming, in the which 

TT/g cpcovqg avTov, 

^ Ka\ iKTtOQBvaovTai^ ol ^ xa ^nd shall come forth; they 

ayad^cL noirjaavTEg mg ava- that have done good, unto the 

axaaiv fco^?, ol ds tcc (pavla resurrection of life ; and they 

TiQa^avzeg eig dvdaraaiv kql- ^^^^-^ h^^e done evil, unto the 

fj^^g^ resurrection of damnation. 



This is undoubtedly the strongest passage in the New 
Testament in favor of the common view of the resurrection, 
and one in respect to which it becomes us seriously to 
guard against any undue bias, from theoretical promptings, 
to wrest it from its true-meant design. If we know our- 
selves, we would deal with the profoundest deference and 
with the utmost fairness with every declaration of holy writ; 
and, in regard to the present passage, we cannot fail to per- 
ceive that it is marked by a certain directness of enunciation, 
in respect to the general subject, which must be considered 
as strongly countenancing the construction which the Chris- 
tian world has ever, for the most part, been led to put upon 
it. Still it can, as we conceive, be no impeachment of a 
becoming reverence for the words of him ** who spake as 
never man spake" to institute the inquiry, how far and on 
what principles his language on this occasion can be recon- 
ciled with the views thus far maintained in our preceding 
pages. Let us trust, then, that the truth will not be offended 
by the following suggestions. 

(1.) It is unquestionable that our Lord speaks in this 
passage in stronger terms than he usually adopts in regard 
to the resurrection of the dead. However it may be ac- 
counted for, the fact is nevertheless certain, that he for the 
most part speaks of it as the distinguishing privilege and 
prerogative of the righteous. Thus, Luke 20. 35, 36 : 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 235 

*' But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that 
world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor 
are given in marriage ; neither can they die any more ; for 
they are equal unto the angels, and are the children (sons) 
of God, being the children (sons) of the resurrection,'^ 
Here it is clear that the ' children of God ' are identified as 
the same with the * children of the resurrection.' Again, 
Luke 14. 12-14, when commanding his disciples to call 
the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, to their feasts, he 
adds, " And thou shalt be blessed ; for they cannot recom- 
pense thee ; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrec- 
tion of the just ;" as if the resurrection belonged emphati- 
cally to the just. In strict accordance with this the apostle 
expresses himself, Phil. 3. 11, ''If by any means I might 
attain unto the resurrection of the dead.'' We have no 
doubt that this aspect of the subject could be abundantly 
explained by reference to the prevailing sentiments of the 
Jews at and before the time of Christ, but we here advert 
to it simply as a fact well entitled to attention in this con- 
nexion — a fact undoubtedly forcing upon us the inference, 
that some special reason existed for adopting on this occa- 
sion a style of announcement diverse from that which gene- 
rally obtains in the New Testament teachings on this sub- 
ject. 

(2.) The passage, as understood in its literal import, does 
certainly encounter the force of that cumulative mass of 
evidence, built upon rational and philosophical grounds, 
which we have arrayed against any statement of the doc- 
trine that would imply the participation of the body in that 
'rising again which is predicated of the dead. We do not 
by any means affirm that the conclusions from that source, 
to which we have come, are sufficient of themselves to coun- 
tervail the rebutting conclusion which may be formed from 
the present passage. All we would say is, that they have 
iceight, and consequently we are not required, or rather are 
not at liberty, at once to dismiss them, as a kind of profane 



236 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

intruders into holy ground, where even the '^ daughter of a 
voice " from Reason is not to insinuate itself into the ears 
of Faith. We confidently re-affirm our position, that the 
human mind cannot be insensible to the claims of the argu- 
ments which we have presented in the form of rational ob- 
jections to the views of the resurrection that would naturally 
be suggested by the literal reading of the present text.* 
We assert it to be impossible that the mind should not feel 
itself pressed with a difficulty of vast weight, when, on the 
one hand, it reads a declaration implying that the dead uni- 
versally shall, at a given time, ages after the words were 
uttered, issue forth from their graves ; and when, on the oth- 
er, the clearest induction of reason assures it, that at that 
period millions of bodies which were once deposited in those 
graves are no longer there. The truth is, this voluntary 
ignoring a difficulty urged against the inspired record is not 
so much a decorous subjection of reason to revelation, as it 
is a downright crucifixion of reason, which assuredly cannot 
be a sacrifice well pleasing to the God of reason. 



* " Your first argument," says Mr. Locke, (Third Let. to Stilling fleet, 
p. 169,) '•' to prove that it must be the same body, is taken from these 
words of our Saviour, ' All that are in their gi-aves shall hear his voice^ 
and ©hall come forth.' From v^'hence your lordship argues that these 
words, ' all that are in their graves,' relate to no other substance than 
what was related to the soul in life, because a different substance cannot 
be said to be in the graves, and to come out of them. Which words of 
your lordship, if they prove any thing, prove that the soul too is lodged in 
the grave, and raised out of it at the last day. For your lordship says, 
* Can a different substance be said to be in the graves, and to come out of 
them 1' So that, according to this interpretation of these words of our 
Saviour, no other substance being raised but what hears his voice ; and no 
other substance hearing his voice but what, being called, comes out of the 
grave ; and no other substance coming out of the grave, but what was in 
the grave ; any one must conclude, that the soul, unless it be in the grave, 
will make no part of the person that is raised, ' unless,' as your lordship 
argues against me, * you can make it out, that a substance which was 
never in the grave can come out of it,' or that the soul is no substance." 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 237 

So far as we are competent to form a judgment, the evi- 
dence from reason preponderates in favor of an idea of the im- 
mediate entrance at death upon the resurrection-state. This 
evidence we have seen to be confirmed by the testimony of 
a multitude of passages which yield this more easily and 
naturally than any other sense. But in the text under con- 
sideration, and perhaps a few others, the doctrine of a future, 
simultaneous bodily resurrection seems to be explicitly 
taught. Here then we are reduced to a new dilemma. 
The character of the difficulty is changed. It is not so 
much now a conflict between Revelation and Reason, as it 
is an apparent conjlict betiveen one part of Revelation and 
another. This consequently changes at once the whole 
complexion of the controversy, if such it may be called. 
The harmonizing of the Scripture statements is of course 
the common concern of all Christians. The exhibition of 
such seeming discrepancies in the sacred writers imposes 
no special responsibilities, on the score of reconciling them, 
on him who makes it. Why should it? He did not write 
the Bible, nor can he have any peculiar personal interest in 
bringing its dicta to a tally which does not pertain equally 
to all his brethren. Here then is an emergency where our 
argument necessarily ceases to present any thing of an 
antagonistic attitude to the previous impressions of the 
reader, and we are respectively called upon to unite our 
efforts to clear up the difficulty. There must doubtless be 
some way of harmonizing texts apparently in conflict, and 
to the discovery of this our readers are as much called as 
we are. If the conclusions and deductions on the present 
subject be true, that truth is as much their truth as it is 
ours, and they are equally chargeable with all the conse- 
quences that legitimately flow from it. In attempting then 
to reconcile the apparently variant testimony of those Scrip- 
tures which are affected by them, we are to make common 
cause, to bring our resources to bear unitedly on the solu- 
tion of the problems, and to come if possible to such a result 

11* 



238 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

as shall leave both revelation and reason unscathed by the 
ordeal. As a farther contribution of our own to this end 
we observe, 

(3.) That without acceding, to the full extent, to the 
canons of interpretation adopted in the accommodation 
school of Semler and others in Germany, we may still ad- 
mit that the principle is to be in some degree recognized in 
the didactic procedures of Christ and the apostles. Cer- 
tain it is, that no one who attentively scans the distinguish- 
ing features of the Gospel can affirm that it is constructed 
on the principle of an open, absolute, and unequivocal ex- 
pose of the great moral truths vv^hich take hold of man's 
future destiny. We perceive all along a constant running 
reference to the doctrines and sentiments imbibed by the 
Jews from their Scriptures, which were undoubtedly an 
imperfect revelation of the entire body of truth that God de- 
signed should eventually find its lodgment in the human 
mind. The interior sense of many shaded prophecies relating 
to the person, work, and kingdon of the Messiah, was unques- 
tionably very fully laid open ; but many others, and more 
especially those relating to the ulterior destinies of man and 
of the globe which he inhabits, were left enveloped in the 
symbolical mantle which was cnly to be removed by the 
onward progress of time and providence. Thus it is indis- 
putable that, in regard to the precise details of the future 
allotment of the two great classes of the righteous and the 
wicked, neither Christ nor his apostles were in the habit of 
uttering themselves in the language of such ample verity as 
entirely to dispel the clouds which hung over it. So also 
of the great events of the resurrection, the judgment, and 
the second advent. The announcements made were suffi- 
cient to exert all requisite moral influence, while they still 
came short of affording that satisfaction to the understand- 
ing which it so earnestly craves. As the New Testament 
is built upon the Old, of which it is rather the fulfilment 
than the abrogation, nothing was more natural than that it 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 239 

should abound from beginning to end with allusions, some- 
times plain, sometimes latent, to the writings of Moses and 
the prophets. These allusions will be found to be continu- 
ally multiplying upon one who enters upon the careful 
study of the two Testaments in the original languages. A 
thousand hidden links of connexion, which escape the eye 
of the reader of any of the versions, disclose themselves as 
he proceeds. The present we cannot but regard as an in- 
stance in point. It is to us unquestionable that the Saviour 
had in his eye the oft-quoted passage of Daniel, 12. 2 : ^' And 
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ; 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt." The phraseology is indeed somewhat varied, 
but the general identity of import is obvious. This, as ut- 
tered by Daniel, was a prophecy which was certainly to be 
fulfilled. Whatever were its true meaning, it could not fail 
of accomplishment. Why then may we not suppose that 
our Saviour's words were a mere re-affirmation, in some- 
what varied terms, of this great truth of their own Scrip- 
tures ? If so, was it necessary that he should at the same 
time act the expositor and lay open in all its details the ex- 
act mode of the accomplishment ? It evidently in its con- 
nexions in Daniel forms a part of a very obscure prediction 
respecting a future period, when Michael, the great Prince, 
should stand up for the children of the prophet's people. 
It was one of those predictions which it would seem was 
only to be developed by the actual fulfilment. May not our 
Saviour then be considered as having simply re-echoed the 
announcement, without professing to give any other addi- 
tional light respecting it than what concerned the divine 
Agent by whom it was to be eflfected, with perhaps the la- 
tent intimation that the time was even then impending, to 
which the spirit of prophecy had at least a partial reference 
in inditing it? Some countenance we think is given to 
this idea by the form of the expression which he employs — 
'* The hour is coming {t^x^zai) when all they," &/C. It can- 



240 THE DOCTRINE OF THE UESURRECTION. 

not be questioned that this is usually the phrase to denote 
an event, or order of events, jwsf on the eve of occiwring ; 
whereas, if he had intended to point forward to a very dis- 
tant future, it is not easy to perceive why he should not 
have said, '' the hour icill come {ehvasTai),'' not to mention 
that the word * hour' seems to imply a season contracted 
within narrower limits than those which we should assign 
to such an event as is usually understood by the general 
resurrection. Still we do not insist upon an explanation 
giving this shade of meaning. It may be well founded, and 
it may not. But the main idea we deem entitled to atten- 
tion. That the words contain an allusion of some sort to 
the kindred passage of Daniel, we think cannot be ques- 
tioned. And yet, as it is clear upon reference to Daniel 
that he does not speak of a general resurrection at the end 
of the world, it seems to be forcing our Saviour's language 
to assign to it that as its true scope. Why is it not suffi- 
cient to understand him as saying in effect, * Marvel not at 
what I have just said, for the time is coming when the 
event predicted by the prophet Daniel, whatever or when- 
ever it shall be, shall be accomplished, and that too through 
my agency, to whom the Father hath given a quickening 
power, however lightly my claims may now be regarded?" 

This strikes us as a view accordant with the general 
analogy of the Saviour's teachings, and in no way deroga- 
tory to his character as a truthful messenger from heaven. 
It cannot, we think, be shoivn that any moral obligation 
rested upon him to declare all the truth respecting the mean- 
ing of the ancient prophecies, nor at once to correct or pre- 
vent all the errors of his people on that score. As prophe- 
cy was designed to be of progressive development, the time 
would eventually come when every prediction would receive 
a perfect explanation from a perfect fulfilment. Even fram- 
ed as it is, the declaration may be understood to yield an 
important truth in accordance with the view we have pre- 
sented. For true it unquestionably is, that all those whose 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 241 

bodies are consigned to the sepulchre emerge from their de- 
funct state, in obedience to the voice of him who has the 
keys of death and hell, into a sphere of existence where, 
according to their works, they are either crowned with life 
everlasting, or doomed to a judgment of wrath without end. 
If this be intrinsically true, it is certain that our Saviour's 
words cannot teach the contrary ; and if they do not mean 
this, they must mean something consistent with it. If the 
truth is not to be harmonized with itself in this way, let him 
who can, suggest another and a better. 

John VI. 39, 40. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Tovro ds ean to O^hj^a tov And this is the Father's will 

7T8uipav76g u8 Tzarohg, Iva nav which hath sent me, that of all 

'1 s^'si / > ' n ^ 'V- which he hath oriven me, I 

, ^ w.S ' '^' , , , , should lose nothmg, but should 

avTov, alia araarrjoajavTOEv raise it up again at the last 

T/J sa'/^dtri rjuiQa. day. 

Tovro ydu sail to dthjixa And this is the will of him 

Tol muxpavTog as, h'a nag 6 ^^^^^ ^ent me, that every one 

n.^,,^ ~, ^^, <v N ' which seeth the Son, and be- 

xrecoQcov TOV viov xa; TziaTevcov r .i ■ • ,' 

, ^, y „ y X ,, V lieveth on hmi, may have ever- 

tig avzov exri^co^^vaicovfov, xac lasting life : and I will raise him 

avacTz/^aco aviov tyoj tij laid- up at the last day. 

TT^ 7j{At^a. 

The same declaration in substance or in form occurs, v. 
44, 54. It certainly denotes the resurrection of those who 
believed in him, and, according to the letter, a resurrection 
within the limits of a certain period, denominated here ^ the 
last day.' An equivalent allusion to this day occurs also, ch. 
12. 48 : '' The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge 
hiin at the last dai/.'' That the expression is conformed to 
the usual mode in which the resurrection of the righteous 
was spoken of among the Jews, is also unquestionable. Still 
we cannot deem ourselves precluded from referring again to 
the principle, somewhat fully developed on a previous page 
(p. 238), on which many things in our Lord's addresses to the 
Jews are to be interpreted. It cannot be denied that, with- 



242 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

out sacrificing or compromising any substantial truth, he did 
still, on many occasions, adapt the style of his discourse to 
the notions then prevalent, and which were grounded, in the 
main, upon the literal record of their Scriptures. Although 
the traditional interpretations put upon these Scriptures 
were, in many instances wrong, yet it obviously did not 
enter his purposes invariably to set his hearers right in re- 
spect to them. Nor can we conceive of his having done so 
without thereby shocking their prejudices to a degree that 
would have prevented their reception of his doctrines, not to 
remark that he could scarcely otherwise have made himself 
intelligible to them.* That this principle, in reference to 



* "But is this agreeable to the character of inspired persons, to make 
use of arguments not conclusive, or to argue with others from what they 
know to be a false sense of Scripture 1 I answer, that so many and 
strong were the prejudices that the Jews labored under, as made their 
conversion to Christianity exceedingly diilicult, and therefore rendered it 
the more necessary that they should be dealt with in a very tender man- 
ner. Particular truths were to be told them as they v/ere able to bear, 
and their prejudices were to be gradually removed by a prudent forbear- 
ance. The apostles of our blessed Saviour could not but remember his 
conduct towards themselves, and acknowledge boih the w^isdom and good- 
ness of it ; and had therefore reason to believe, that the same method of 
acting towards others might have a good influence over them. They 
did not indeed conceal the main and essential doctrines of Christianity, 
how much soever those to whom they preached might be offended with 
them. But as for other matters of lesser importance, the interpretation 
of a single passage of Scripture, for instance, supposing them mistaken, 
was it necessary they should be immediately contradicted 1 Or rather, 
was it not prudent to leave it to time and better knowledge to correct it '? 
Or ought the apostles to have neglected to show them how such and such 
a passage was accomplished in Jesus Christ, if they fairly could do it, and 
those to whom they preached expected it 1 

" If these, indeed, were the only topics they argued from, I should 
suspect their inspiration, and their testimony would deserve but little 
credit. But since there are but few instances of this kind, and the apos- 
tles lay but little stress upon such citations ; and, at the same time they 
make use of them, lay down other solid and substantial proofs of the truth 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 243 

the interpretation of the New Testament, is to be applied 
with special guards and limitations, we may certainly ad- 



cf Christianity, such as the certainty of Chrisfs miracles and resurrec- 
tion, the excellency of his doctrines, and the certain accomplishment of 
real prophecies, as this was a rational method of converting them to the 
Christian faith, so the other was but a prudent means of preventing the ill 
effects of their prejudices ; and all that will follow from this way of arguing 
in the apostles is, not that they endeavored to build Christianity on a false 
foundation, but that, as they established the truth of it by undeniable proofs, 
so they took all the best care they could to secure to them their proper in- 
fluence and force. Indeed such a method of arguing as this is not to be 
looked upon as any proper proof, nor is it ever designed as such by those 
who make a just use of it. It is rather an appeal to a person's present 
sentiments, and taking the advantage of his own concessions. This, 'tis 
true, would be unworthy a wise or good man, if there were no argu- 
ments of intrinsic worth made use of; but where the thing to be proved 
is suported by solid reasons, I see nothing to forbid our appealing to a 
person's avowed sentiments, where a fair advantage can be made of it ; 
especially, as by thus complying for a while with an innocent prejudice, 
we take the most effectual way hereafter to remove it. For he who uses 
this method of arguing with another, doth not hereby avow the truth of 
the principles he argues from ; and therefore cannot be said to confirm 
him in his prejudice or mistake ; tho' at the same time it must be allowed, 
he doth not endeavor to undeceive him. But is it necessary that, when 
we argue with any person to convince him of any particular truth, we 
must immediately also endeavor to undeceive him of every mistake 1 Is 
it not the more rational and just way, first to establish him in the belief 
of the things that are of greater importance ; and when by the force of 
evidence he is gained thus far, lesser mistakes will be more easily removed, 
and truth of every sort will have the more free access to his understand- 
ing and belief? Supposing then that passage of Hosea, ' Out of Egypt 
hane I called my son,' had not original reference to the Messiah, hut was 
only interpreted so to have by the Jews at that time ; how were they to 
be treated under such a persuasion ] Had the apostles of Jesus Christ 
immediately denied the reference of this prophecy to the Messiah, the 
Jews possibly would have answered, the reason was, because there was 
nothing in his character to answer to it ; and so would have continued 
unbelievers, under the pretence that Scripture prophecies were not suffi- 
ciently accomplished in him. Was it not therefore expedient, that if there 
was any remarkable event in our Saviour's life that did properly corres- 



244 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

mit ; nevertheless, the principle in itself is a sound one, 
and there is no reason that we should be deterred from ap- 
pealing to it, because it may be or has been pressed beyond 
its legitimate uses. When our Saviour, for instance, says, 
Mat. 12. 27, '' If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom 
do your children cast them out?'' are we to suppose that 
he intended to sanction the common belief, that such exor- 
cisms were actually performed at that tiaie by others than his 
own disciples ? The conceit was rife among the people that 
such was indeed the case, and our Lord simply adopted the 
argument ex concessis^ without intimating whether the pop- 
ular belief had a ground of truth or not.* The same remark 
applies to a subsequent part of the same conversation, where 
he speaks of an evil spirit going out of a man, wandering 
over waste and dry places, and finally returning reinforced 
by a company of other spirits v^^orse than himself, and taking 
possession of his old habitation. This surely does not im- 
ply the absolute truth of such a representation, but is merely 
a specimen of his adapting his teachings to prevalent ideas. 
So also in regard to the use of a variety of terms which 
were in vogue among the Jews at that time, and to which they 
doubtless affixed a meaning that was not perfectly accord- 
ant with truth. The words spirit, soul, heaven, hell, 6lc., 
undoubtedly conveyed, in their popular usage, ideas that 
would not stand the test of absolute truth. Yet our Sav- 
iour used them without intimating that he did it in any 
other than the common acceptation. So also in regard to 
the phrases ' world' — ' world to come' — ' end of the world,' 



pond with the sense of that passage, it should be pointed out to the Jews ? 
Or was there any thing of untruth in saying, if that was a prophecy of the 
Messiah, then thus is the Scripture fulfilled ; or this event is the accom- 
plishment of that prophecy?' — Chandler's Vindic. pp. 366-370. 

* " The words of Christ here do not prove that they had actually the 
power of casting out devils, but only that they claimed it, and practised 
magic or jugglery.'" — Barnes in loc. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 245 

— there is no evidePiCe that he did not employ them as they 
were generally understood. So in the present case we rest 
in the conclusion, that our Lord spake on the subject of the 
resurrection in accordance with the sentiments and the dic- 
tion then prevjilent, and that his words are not to be regard- 
ed as a criterion of the absolute truth of the current doctrine. 
Yet that they are not so very far from absolute truth will 
appear from a rigid inquest into the import of the words them- 
selves : ** I will raise him up at the Hsi day." Now it will not 
be maintained that the body alone constitutes the person. In 
fact, we have seen that the material body is a mere append- 
age to the real man. But it is the man — ' him' — that is to 
be raised, and as we are elsewhere expressly assured that 
that which constitutes the essence of the person never dies — 
" he that liveth and believeth on me shall never die'' — we are 
undoubtedly forced to predicate the ' raising ' of that which 
is the subject of living. The man appears to die with the 
death of the body, but in reality he lives an indestructible 
life, and vvhile at his exit from the body he does in truth 
enter into a resurrection state, yet this is invisible to mortal 
eyes ; and therefore the resurrection itself is spoken of as 
deferred to the period of the manifestation of the risen 
dead, to that great era of development when the veil shall 
be removed from the spiritual world, and Christ and his 
glorified church shall be disclosed to an admiring universe. 
Into this unnumbered congregation the departing saints are 
continually being transferred one by one ; but when the num- 
ber is complete, and the divine economy which has secured 
their redemption is brought to a close, then shall they shine 
forth as the brightness of the sun in the firmament, and as the 
stars, forever and ever. This is the day for which the whole 
creation groans and travails together in pain, for which it 
longs and looks forward as witli outstretched neck ; and, in 
view of the difficulties which encumber every other solution, 
we see no valid objection to understanding the Saviour's 
words in this sense. 



246 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



John XL 21-26. 



ENG. VERS. 



rov'It]ooui'' ' xv()i(:, ti )]g oudSj 
6 a88lq)6i; fiov ovx ap 8ze\}v}'j- 

}i8l. 

'^IXa xai vvv old a, on, oaa 
ar alTi](jri rov d'eov dc66Si aoi 
6 d^eog. 

Atyti avTij 6 'If]60vg ' dva- 
(jzi]a8Tai ddtlcpog aov. 

Atyti ahzo^ Maqd'ci' old a, 
on dvaaT/jGsiaij iv Trj draard- 
6£( h 71] ia^dTTj i]iA8QCi. 

El 718V avzfi 6 'fijaovg' eyoi 
81111 7] dvdaicKjfg xal ritcoi]' 6 
TTiGrSVCOP 8ig E^8j Kav dTToddvYj 
^/]G8Tai. 

Kai, nag 6 Icov 'acu Tziarsu- 
cov 8ig f'u£ 01' f.ii] d7io\}dv}] tig 
Tov aldora. 77iOT8V8(g tovto ; 



Then Martha said unto Je- 
sus, Lord, if thou hadsl been 
here, my brother liad not died. 



But I know that even now, 
whatsoever thou wilt ask of 
God, God will give it thee. 

Jesus saith unto her, Thy 
brother shall rise again. 

Martha saith unto him, I 
know that he shall rise again 
in ihe resurrection at the last 
day. 

Jesus saith unto her, I am the 
resurrection and the life: he 
that believeth in me, though he 
were dead, yet shall he live : 

And whosoever liveth and 
believeth in me, shall never die. 
Believest thou this ? 



This is a passage of similar import with the preceding, 
and is lo be construed on the same principle. The words 
of Martha evince that she merel^^ echoed the general senti- 
ment of the age, and perhaps of former ages, in declaring 
the expectation that her brother would rise at the last day. 
Our Lord does not, indeed, in so many words assure her 
that her belief was founded upon an incorrect view of the 
truth; at the same time, upon a closer view of the Sav- 
iour's language, we cannot easily resist the impression, that 
he actually designed to correct something that was errone- 
ous, or at least inadequate, in her belief. On any other 
supposition let us see how the discourse proceeds. Martha 
tells Jesus that she has no doubt that her brother will rise at 
the last day ; and he, admitting and approving the sentiment, 
replies, ' I am the resurrection and the life,' intimating, on 
this construction, that what she said was very true, that at 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 247 

the last day he should raise her brother to an immortal life. 
He then proceeds, advancing in some way upon what he had 
just said, and informs her that all dead Christians shall live 
again, and that no living Christian shall die forever. But 
upon this view of the passage, what has he said but what 
Martha had already told him that she knew ? For surely, if 
she knew that Lazarus should rise again at the last day, she 
must, upon the same grounds, have known that every de- 
ceased Christian would also rise at the last day, and that no 
living Christian would die forever. This sense seems, in 
fact, to be precluded by the question which Christ immedi- 
ately proposes, ^ Believest thou this V Can we suppose he 
would spend so many words to tell Martha what she already 
knew, and then, after all, ask her whether she believed 
this? 

The following, then, we conceive to be a much juster 
interpretation. Our Lord really designs, by imparting to her 
the true nature of the resurrection, to inform her also that 
that ' last day,' which she was expecting, had even now in 
effect come, and therefore that there was no reason why she 
should give way to sorrow, or even despair of having her bro- 
ther restored to her. He tells her, ' Pie that believeth in me, 
though he should die, as your brother now seems to have 
done, yet, in fact, it is little more than an illusion on the 
senses ; he still lives to every high and real purpose of exist- 
ence. Nor is this all ; every living man that believes in me 
shall, in fact, never die. Although, indeed, he may be call- 
ed in God's time to put off the mortal body, and though you 
may call this death, yet, in truth, it is a change scarcely 
worth the name. Of his conscious, active, and happy being 
there is no interruption at all forever. If such, then, be the 
true state of the case in regard to departed believers — if they 
really emerge in full life and consciousness from the dying 
body into the resurrection-state — why imagine the resurrec- 
tion to be deferred to some distant future period called ' the 
last day?' Believest thou, Martha what I say? If so, you 
perceive you have little occasion to grieve for your deceased 



248 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

brother ; nevertheless, as the mere reanimation of the life- 
less corpse is a comparatively trifling work of Omnipotence, 
your brother shall even now rise again.^^ Here, doubtless, 
was much new and important doctrine, in regard to which 
it might very properly be asked of Martha, ' Believest thou 
this ?"* 

* The following paraphrase expresses so happily and, as we conceive, 
so correctl}'', the drift of our Lord's conversation with Martha, that we give 
it in this connexion : 

" As soon as she heard that Jesus v/as come, Martha ran out to meet 
him, and said unto him, ' Lord, we sent to inform thee that Lazarus was 
dangerously ill ; we thought the intelligence might have reached thee 
earlier : fluctuating beUveen hope and apprehension, we counted the hours 
in anxious expectation of thy arrival, till at length Lazarus expired- If 
thou hadst been here, we had not been afflicted thus ; for surely that heal- 
iQg power which we know has so often been employed for strangers in 
distress, would not have been withheld by thee from the family of thy 
chosen friend. It is too late to save him from death, but still perhaps not 
too late to restore him to life ; for whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, I am 
persuaded God wifl grant it to thee.' Jesus saith unto her, ' Martha, be 
composed ; thy brother is not lost to thee for ever : though he has fall- 
en under the stroke of death, he will rise again.' Martha saith unto him, 
' Ah, Lord, at the last day, I know ; but this was not what I was think- 
ing of and wishing ; without thy help he is lost to us till then.' ' It is 
true, Martha,' replied Jesus, ' that there are instances in v/hich the dead 
have been restored by me : and if my friendship were to desire the inter- 
position of the Divine Power, you might reasonably expect, perhaps, that 
such a miracle might be renewed in your behalf; but you know that I 
have brougiit light and immortality to light ; and had you duly attended 
to my doctrine on the subject, you could hardly have been so much agita- 
ted and so disconsolate as you are. Let xne tell you, that he that believe th 
in me, when he has died, will live ; death is no detriment to him ; he wilj 
not be hurt by that revolution of his being. And let me add, too, however 
much it may astonish you, and hov/ever different it may be from your 
present apprehensions, that every faithful living Christian in reality shall 
never die. Did you call these things to mind, Martha, when you were so 
anxious for my. arrival to prevent your brother's death ? Do j^ou feel these 
things as you ought, while you are so earnestly wishing my interposition 
to raise him out of his grave ? You have not understood me, or you have 
not believed me as you ought : Martha, how is this 1 Believest thou these 
things now?" Cappe's Crit. Rem. on N. Test., Vol. II. p. 326. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



249 



One thing, we think, is to be admitted as beyond ques- 
tion, that if, as we have endeavored to show, the general 
tenor of Scripture is adverse to the idea of a resurrection so 
long delayed, the true sense of the Saviour's language can- 
not bear that interpretation; for Jerome has well remarked 
that '* the serise of Scripture is the Scripture, and not the 
mere words," and certainly the true sense of Revelation must 
accord with the truth of any subject on which it treats.* 

Acts II. 29-35. 



ENG. VERS, 



'^rd()£g adtXcpoi, b'^ov htthv 
fiEia 7TaoQi]6iag nnog vfiag 
ntQi Tov nciTQiaQyov /I avid, 
on 'Acu helavTijaa yiai Izaopij, 
'iicu TO fA,v7]fxa aviov lariv iv 
rj^iv a^Qi Trig ijii^Qag Tamr^g. 

TIi)oq,ilxriq ovv vnaQxojv, xal 
sldcog, GTi OQxoj SiiO(ysv avjq) 
6 xhog ly, 'AaQTzov tljg 6aq)vog 
avTOv TO Kara oaQxa draGz/j- 
ativ 70V XoiaTOv, y.a{^i<5ai Inl 
tov 'Oqovov avTOv. 

nQo'idoov tldX}]68 ttsqI tljg 
draazdaecog tov Xoiaiov, on. 
ov yuiTtldcfx^ri rj \pv'/}i avrov 
tig adov, oi'ds // octQ^ aviov 
tidt diacpdoQav. 

TovTor TOV 'IriGovv drt'oTi]- 
6tv dtog, ov Tidvieg 7)fmg 
iaj^iev fxdQTVQEg. 



Men and brethren, let me 
freely speak unto you of the pa- 
triarch David, that he is both 
dead and buried, and his sepul- 
chre is w4th us unto this day. 



Therefore being a prophet, 
and know^ing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him, 
that of the fruit of his loins, ac- 
cording to the flesh, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his 
throne ; 

He. seeing this before, spake 
of the resurrection of Christ, 
that his soul was not leit in 
hell, neither did his flesh see 
corruption. 

This Jesus hath God raised 
up, whereof w^e are all w4t- 



* It deserves very serious inquiry on the part of philologists whether the 
clause in the 25th verse should not be translated — " He that believeth in me 
though he should die (kuv d~oOdvri) yet shall he live." Without positive- 
ly denying the correctness of the present version — " though he were 
dead"' — we still think the evidence preponderates in favor of the other. 
Indeed, we have not been able to find a single instance in the New Tes- 
tament where the word is otherwise rendered. 



250 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRP:CTI0N. 

Tfi de'^ia ovv tov d^aov vxpoo- Therefore being by the right 

S^£k\ 7rjv \e mayyeliav 7oi !^^"^ ^^' .^^^ exalted, and hav- 

c /' / T n > > mg received of the Father the 

aytov nvEiyarog^ la^cw naQa ^^-^-^^ ^^ ^^^ ^. ^^^^^^^ j^^ 

rov TzaTQog,^ £§£/££ jovro, o hath shed forth this, which ye 

vvv VfXEig ^Xm8T8 xai axovsrs. now see and hear. 

Ov yaQ /Javtd avt^ri etg For David is not ascended 

rovg ovgavovg, Imi ds aviog- ^^]}^ .^^^^ heavens, but he saith 

T f ^ / - / . ot himself, The Lord said unto 

siTier o 'AVQiOS _t<P xvQiw f,ov ^^ Lord, Sit thou on niy right 

xadov 8K OEtiojv fiov, hand 

''Ecog av i?w rovg ixx^QOvg Until I make thy foes thy 

60V VTlOTTOdiOV TCOV TTOdcOV GOV. footstool. 



On these words Mr. Barnes remarks, that they '' do not 
affirm that David was not saved, or that his spirit had not 
ascended to heaven, but that he bad not been exalted in the 
heavens, in the sense in which Peter was speaking of the 
Messiah.'' This is doubtless a very correct remark. That 
the word ' ascended,' in this connexion, implies a glorious 
exaltation, is evident from the ensuing clause, the scope of 
which is this : — ^' If David were the real person of whom 
this resurrection and ascension were predicted, it would fol- 
low, as a matter of course, that David v/ould be the person 
to take his seat at the right hand of God, for the ascension 
and the session are inseparable prerogatives that must neces- 
sarily meet in the same person. But how does this agree 
with the matter of fact ? How does it agree with David's 
own words in another Psalm ? Does he speak of himself as 
destined to this high pre-eminence ? So far from it that he 
expressly affirms, '^ The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
on my right hand," &c. As, then, the sitting at the right 
hand of the Majesty on high did not pertain to David, so of 
course neither could the ascension here spoken of This is 
entirely in accordance with our Saviour's words, John 3. 13 : 
*' No man hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven." 
That is, no man hath been the subject of such a glorious 
exaltation as pertains to the Son of man alone. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 251 

This is clearly the scope of the passage, and conse- 
quently it cannot be cited as having an import adverse to 
that of the general mass of Scripture testimony on the sub- 
ject. The denial of a public, offi,cial, and glorious ascen- 
sioUj in respect to David's disembodied spirit, does not in- 
volve a denial of his real, though unseen, translation from a 
body which had long since mouldered away, into the man- 
sions of all beatified spirits. The apostle certainly did not 
mean to say that that which constituted the actual and es- 
sential ipseity or selfhood of David, was then reposing in 
the sepulchre at Jerusalem. But if not there, where was it, 
and in what condition? Must it not have been in the state 
common to all those of kindred character ? — and if this 
were a state which is the result of the established and uni- 
form laws of human existence, is any exception to be sup- 
posed in the case of David? So far, then, as the proof is 
valid that this is a resurrection-state, so far is the proof from 
this passage invalid, that Peter denies a real resurrection of 
David, or by inference, of any one else, at the time of his 
death. 

Acts XXIV. 14, 15. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

'O^JLoloyco ds lovio ao(, on But this I confess unto thee, 

yiaza rhv odor, r,v Uyovaiv al- ^^^.^ f^er the way which they 

f/ T ' ~ call heresv, so worship i the 

q.Giv, ovrai larQevco ry na- ^^^^^ ^^ J^ ^,^^^^^^^^ believing. 

TQcpcp d-£M, matsvcov miai TOig ^n ihi^gs which are written in 

xaia TOP vojAOV xai iv Tolg the law and in the prophets : 
7TQ0cp7]7aig yeyQanjx^voig. 

'EXmda eycov ag %ov {)e6v, .^^^ have hope toward God, 

« N 5 V r c. f which they themselves also 

' , , /-n ^' Y allow, that there shall be a re- 

rai, avaaraaiv fxtUetr aaeaifai gurrection of the dead, both of 

VEXQav, dixaicov re 'acu ddi- the just and the unjust' 

A problem of a twofold solution is here presented to us. 
First, upon what authority does Paul affirm that the Phar- 
isees believed in a resurrection *' both of the just and the 



252 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

unjusi?'* Secondly, supposing the assertion to be well 
founded, how are his words to be construed in consistency 
with what we assume to be the true doctrine of the Scrip- 
tures on this subject? We must certainly admit that the 
unequivocal assertion of an inspired apostle carries with it 
£i prijnd facie evidence of conveying an absolute truth. Yet 
when such an assertion relates to a matter of historical fact, 
on which we have other sources of information, we are, 
doubtless, at liberty freely to inquire how far the assertion is 
sustained by authentic records, and in what way any appa- 
rent discrepancy between them is to be reconciled. We do not 
conceive that the simple declaration even of an inspired man, 
on a subject of this nature, is a necessary foreclosure of all 
inquiry into its grounds. In regard to the present point, we 
think the evidence is conclusive that the Pharisees, as a 
body, did not hold to the resurrection of the wicked. So far 
as their creed on this subject was built upon the revelations 
of the Old Testament Scriptures, we have already seen that, 
although they recognize the fact of the future existence of 
all men, the wicked as well as the righteous, yet that of the 
former they do not dignify with the title of resurrection ; and 
in the New Testament we find but two cr three passages 
which speak at all distinctly on the subject, and even they 
are capable of a construction consistent with the general 
style in which the doctrine is announced, as the special and 
'distinguishing privilege of the children of God. We have, 
moreover, the testimony of Josephus in two remarkable 
passages, than which nothing can be more express. ^^ They 
(the Pharisees) also believe that souls have an immortal 
vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be re- 
wards and punishments, according as they have lived virtu- 
ously or viciously in this life ; and the latter are to be detain- 
ed in an everlasting pin son. but that the former shall have poiver 
to revive and live again." (J. A., L. xviii. c. 1.) Again, 
'^ They say that all souls are incorruptible ; but that the soul 
of the good man only passes into another body, while that of 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 253 

the wicked is subject to eternal punishment. ^^ (J. W., L. II. 

Other testimony to this effect from Jewish sources may 
easily be adduced. Thus R. David Kimchi, in comment- 
ing on the first Psalm, remarks : " The benefit of the rain 
is common to the just and the unjust, but the resurrection 
of the dead is the peculiar privilege of those w^ho have lived 
righteously.'' Thus too R. Moses Gerundensis : '' No one 
can be partaker of an interest in the world to come, but the 
souls only of just men, separated from their body, shall en- 
ter into it.'' R. Menasseh Ben Israel, in his treatise on 
the Resurrection of the Dead, speaks to the same effect 
(B. II. c. 8) : '^ From the mind and opinion then of all 

* It is upon the warrant of this text alone that Josephus has been 
charged with attributing to the Pharisees a doctrine but little removed 
from the Pythagorean transmigration of souls. But it is obvious that the 
phrase KaraSaiven' els ertpov ao)l.ia, to pass into another hody, necessarily 
implies no such idea. It yields as readily the sense of a translation of the 
soul into an ethereal or spiritual body, such as we have endeavored to 
show is taught by the united voice of sound reasoning and sound herme- 
neutics. On this, as on other points, gleams of the truth appear at an age 
when vre should scarcely have expected them. Thus, for instance, it ap- 
pears from the following extract from Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Try- 
pho, that €ven in that early age there were some who came very near to 
what we consider the true doctrine on this subject, and yet it is evident 
that their sentiments were so far from those generally held, that they were 
accounted heretical : — " If you have met with certain persons, called Chris- 
tians, who do not confess this, but have the boldness to blaspheme the God 
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and who say that 
there is no resurrection of the dead, hut that immediately on death the 
soul is received up into heaven, do not consider them as Christians, any 
more than, properly speaking, you would give the name of Jews to .the 
Sadducees and other heretical sects. ... I, however, and as many as 
are altogether orthodox, believe that there will be a resurrection of the 
jiesh, and a Millennium in Jerusalem restored, adorned, and enlarged, ac- 
cording to the predictions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets.'* 
These * heretics' would seem to have held that a resurrection might pro- 
perly be said to take place upon the soul's leaving the body, but as the 
opinion had then obtained footing, that the resurrection necessarily im- 



254 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the ancients, we conclude that there will not be a general 
resurrection of the dead, and one common to all men ;" and 
in proof of it cites the well known passage in Daniel, 
'* Many of them that sleep in the dust," &lc., where he 
says the ' many ' cannot mean * all.' Pococke, in his Notes 
on the ^' Porta Mosis" of Maimonides, has accumulated a 
large mass of evidence from the Rabbinical writers going 
to establish the same position, and Eisenmenger in his 
" Endectes Judenthum's," has furnished many more. There 
seems, therefore, no room to question that the general senti- 
ments of the Pharisees in all ages have been adverse to the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked, and this view we 
have seen to be countenanced by the prevailing usage of 
the Scriptures. At the same time it is equally clear that 
the sect was not unanimous in this opinion. The writers 
above mentioned, and many others who might be named, 
afford evidence that the belief has ever to some extent ob- 
tained among them, that the resurrection will include all 
men without exception ; and of this fact the apostle, in the 
passage before us, doubtless takes advantage, and in a dis- 
pute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, without denying 
that he is a Christian, affirms that, as touching the future 
destiny of man, he takes side with the former. This he 
might properly do, although aware that on this particular 
theme they were not all of one mind — nay, although the 
majority of them, as was doubtless the case, held the oppo- 
site sentiment. 

plied 'the resurrection of the flesh/ the opposing view was at once ostra- 
cized from the pale of orthodoxy. The true ground of this was evidently 
the prevalence of the Millenarian doctrine. That doctrine has been from 
that day to this the grand support of the crass conceptions which have 
been entertained on the subject of the resurrection. The legitimate pro- 
duct of this theory is the sleep of the soul during the interval betw^een 
death and the resurrection, although, perhaps, not often expressly admit- 
ted. It plainly discovers itself, however, in the above extract from Jus- 
tin, and a strict interrogation of Millenarianism in all ages would elicit 
the same belief. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 255 

As to the second question, therefore, how the apostle's 
words are to be understood consistently with the dom- 
inant teaching of reason and revelation on this subject, there 
can be no doubt that he would conform his averments to 
those of Christ. These, we have already seen, when con- 
sidered in the letter, announced, in some cases, the resur- 
rection of the wicked as well as that of the righteous. How 
his language is to be interpreted in accordance with truth, 
we have previously endeavored to show. The same prin- 
ciples that apply to the construction of his language must of 
course apply to that of the apostle. In explaining the one, 
we have explained the other. We have shown, if we mis- 
take not, that our Saviour's declaration, while based upon 
certain familiar usages of speech to be found in the sacred 
writers, is, at the same time, capable of an interpretation 
which will not bring it into conflict with those conclusions 
that, on other grounds, both of Scripture and science, we 
cannot avoid forming. Those explanations it will not be 
necessary to repeat in this connexion. 

RoM. VIII. 10, 11. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

El ds XQfarog Iv vfAlv, to And if Christ be in yon, the 

lAh ac^^a V8XQ0V dc afxaQitar, j^^^^^ ^« ^^^^^^ .b^,^''^"f «^ '''' 5 

^ y ^^ ^ ^ V ^ V ^ 5> but ihe Spirit IS hie because 01 

TO OS TTvev^a fco// Oac drAcao- rio-hteousness. 
ovrriv. 

El 8tT0 TTvtvf^ia Tov eysloaV' But if the Spirit of him that 

7og "Ljaovv h tbxqmv olxd iv raised up Jesus from the dead 

vfxTr, iyeiQug tov Xqimov /x ']T^^I'\ y°^;/^^ 1^^^; ^f%^ ,"P 

^ ^^ J ^ , ^ ^ n Christ froiTi the dead shall also 

viv^qi^v L(yionouiaei xcu Ta din]- q^i^i^e^ you, j^^rtal bodies by 

TajjMimra v{aojv 8ia to noi- \Yis Spirit that dwelleth in you. 

y.ovv avTov Tzvtvfxa iv vixlv. 

Nothing is more obvious to the careful reader of this and 
the other epistles of Paul, ^lan that the term * body' is used in 
a somewhat figurative sense to denote not so much the phys- 
ical organization in distinction from the soul, as the body 
considered as the seat and subject of moral corruption, and 



256 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

thus set in opposition to the spiritual or renewed part of our 
nature. By the body's being dead, therefore, in connexion 
with Christ's inhabitation of it, is implied an admission, that, 
viewed in itself, as actuated by its native propensities, it is 
indeed (^wsV) dead in trespasses and sins. As sin has its 
seat, in great measure, in the fleshly appetites, and as those 
reign supreme in the body by its inherent depravity, the 
body, considered in this light, may be regarded as dead — 
dead, di afiagxlav, because of sin. But in the regenerated, *the 
spirit,' the immortal part, being renewed by the Holy Ghost, 
which Christ imparts, is endowed with a principle of true 
life, dia diyMLoai'vr^Vj because of righteousness , by the work- 
ing of that influence which is imparted in the new birth. 
This principle of divine life, thus infused into the soul 
which inhabits a body morally dead, will gradually work 
outward from its centre, and quicken that body also with 
a divine vitality. For as this principle of life flows from 
Him, *' who hath life in himself," and who gave such a de- 
monstration of its efficacy in raising up Christ from the 
dead, the supposition is perfectly easy, that the same power 
is competent to a complete spiritual quickening of the 
whole man in his saints, so that they shall stand before him 
as in the highest sense alive, soul, spirit, and body. The text 
is therefore entirely analogous with Col. 2. 12 : " Buried with 
him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through 
the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from 
the dead.'' The idea of any allusion to a physical resurrec- 
tion is opposed by the following considerations : 

(1.) The quickening here spoken of is evidently one 
that is effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit. But a 
literal resurrection of the dead, even supposing it taught at 
all, is not elsewhere attributed to the Spirit. He is represent- 
ed as the author of the present spiritual life of the saints, but 
not of their future physical life. 

(2.) The phrase x}vi]Ta oM^aia, mortal bodies, cannot 
fairly be interpreted to mean the same as vey.ga abifima, dead. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 257 

bodies, which yet it must be, if the doctrine of the literal 
resurrection is here taught. By * mortal' is signified, not 
dead, but tending to death, subject to death. On the theory 
assumed, the apostle is in reality made to say, 'God shall 
raise to life your living dead bodies,' which is of course an 
idea too extravagant to be for a moment admitted. 

(3.) This interpretation destroys the continuity and 
coherence of the apostle's discourse. It supposes him ab- 
ruptly to break off from a connected series of remarks rela- 
tive to walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, to 
leap onward to the resurrection of the dead, and having 
simply glanced at this, to return as suddenly, and resume the 
thread of his argument. This is, to say the least, a very 
violent supposition. 

As, therefore, all the exigencies of the context are an- 
swered by understanding the reference to be to the spiritual 
quickening of the body, by the vitalizing influence of the 
Holy Ghost, in the present life, we are constra,ined to reject 
any other construction of the passage. In this we are 
happy to perceive that Mr. Barnes {in loc.) concurs. 
After expressing his belief that it does not refer to the re- 
surrection of the dead (i. e. of the body), he remarks: *' I 
understand it as referring to the body, subject to carnal de- 
sires and propensities; by nature under the reign of death, 
and therefore mortal ; i. e. subject to death. The sense is, 
that under the gospel, by the influence of the Spirit, the 
entire man will be made alive in the service of God. Even 
the corrupt, carnal, and mortal body, so long under the do- 
minion of sin, shall be made alive and recovered to the ser- 
vice of God. This will be done by the Spirit that dwells in 
us, because that Spirit has restored life to our souls, abides 
with us with his purifying influence, and because the design 
and tendency of his indwelling is to purify the entire man, 
and restore all to God. Christians thus in their bodies and 
their spirits become sacred. For even their body, the seat 
of evil passions and desires, shall become alive in the ser- 
vice of God." 



25S THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

V. 22, 23. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Oidafxev yuQ, oti naaa rj For we know that the whole 

yaiaig avorBva^u %a\ ovrcodi- creation trroaneth, and travail- 

vei axQi roi vvv. ^^^' ^'^ P^^'^ together until now : 

Oh iiovov de, alia xal av- For not only they, but our- 

roi z}]v ana^yjiv tov TtvevfAa- selves also, which have the 

Tog syovreg xal riuslg avrol h fii'st-fruits of the Spirit, even 

c/v^.^r--, ^^. '>- « a ' we ourselves groan within our- 

eavrocg azeva^of^sv mo{>eaiav ^^^^^^^ waitin|for the adoption, 

anexbExoixevoi, ttiv aTiolvTQCo- to wit, the redemption of our 

aiv TOV acoiidtog tjfA.6ov* body. 



The ' adoption' here mentioned as the object of the 
intense expectancy of the saints who had the first-fruits of 
the Spirit, is undoubtedly their manifested sonship, or what 
is called before, v. 19, in express terms, the manifestation of 
the sons of God. The ' redemption of the body' evidently 
indicates a state identical with that of this acknowledged 
adoption which is in reserve for the heirs of the kingdom. 
This is to be the realized consummation of the Christian's 
hopes, that to which they are all to come as one redeemed, 
regenerated, sanctified body. It is their common inheritance ; 
and as the charch is often spoken of as a body, of which 
Christ is the presiding head and the pervading life, we per 
ceive nothing incongruous in the idea that this collective 
body of the saints is here intended by Paul. Certain it is, 
that there is a difficulty, on every other explanation, of ac- 
counting for the use of the singular number in this con- 
nexion. Why, if the common view be well founded, does 
he not say ' redemption of our bodies ' instead of * redemp- 
tion of our body?' This may appear at first blush a criti- 
cism of little weight, but we are persuaded it is one of prime 
importance, and that we are entitled to demand some ra- 
tional solution of the problem involved in the phraseology. 
Nothing certainly would be more natural than the use of the 
plural if he were speaking of the physical resurrection of 
believers. As it is, we cannot doubt that the term is to be 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 259 

taken in a collective sense, for the spiritual or mystical body 
of Christ, !^the whole aggregate of believers ; so that * our 
body,' in this connexion, is merely another phrase for the 
hocly to which we belong. We believe, moreover, that the 
apostle in adopting the phraseology had his eye on the 
parallel expression in Is. 26. 19 : '' Thy dead men shall live, 
together with my (i. e. our) dead body shall they rise." But 
it does not follow that he intended by such a tacit reference 
to suggest the true exposition of that text. This w^e have 
endeavored to unfold on a previous page. We are unable, 
therefore, to regard the present passage as countenancing 
the theory of the resurrection of the body, 

2 CoR. V. 2-4. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

' Ka\ ydn iv rovrco ctevd- For in this we groan, earnest- 

tofxev, To\hriiQiov )m(^v to ly.desiring to be clothed upon 

\u •> ~ -> ^ / A . ' with our house which is from 

f^ ovQCivov BTierouaaoxfai sttl- j^gaven* 

TTOd^OVi^TSg, 

Elys xcu ivdvadpievoi ov If so be that being clothed, 

yvixvol n'QEdfjaofieOa. we shall not be found naked. 
Kal yew ol ovreg ev tq") (7>rf For we that are in this taber- 

'>^ ^ /3..^«.' .o..'«. oV,' nacle do orroan, beincr burden- 

cp ov d^tlofxev exdvaaaOca, aU^ unclothed, but clothed upon, 
imvdvaaa&ai, Iva ^Accrano&ri that mortality might be swal- 
70 {^V7]T0V V7T0 Trig ^cojjg, lowed up of life. 

Several points having an important bearing on our theme 
disclpse themselves in this passage. In the first place, it can- 
not be doubted that the ' house from heaven,' for which 
the apostle longed, is the same with the * spiritual body' of 
which he speaks I Cor. 15. 44. Mr. Barnes indeed remarks 
of the opinion maintained by some expositors, that it refers 
to a ' celestial vehicle' with which God invests the soul after 
death, that '' the Scripture is silent about any such celes- 
tial vehicle." But the Scripture is certainly not silent about 
a ' spiritual body,' and if this is not a ' celestial vehicle,' 
what is it ? It cannot be a body of flesh and blood, and 



260 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

though the phrase may involve an idea of something, the in- 
terior nature of which we cannot at present understandj yet 
we see not but the phrase itself is entirely proper in this ap- 
plication. It is, at any rate, the very unanimous judgment 
of commentators that the 'house from heaven' is the resur- 
rection-body, whatever that be ; and that the change here al- 
luded to by the apostle is the same with that by which ' the 
corruptible puts on incorruption.^'* Nor is it undeserving 
of notice that the apostle here uses the present tense, exofisv^ 
we have, and not the future, toe shall have. 

Secondly, it is clear, we think, that Paul expected to be 
clothed upon with this heavenly house as soon as he left the 
material body. This is evident from the whole strain of his 
discourse, but especially from v. 6, 8 : ** Knowing that, whilst 
we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord : 
we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from 
the body, and present with the Lord." What other infer- 
ence can we draw from this, than that he expected at once 
to assume that celestial tenement which would capacitate 
him for 'being with Christ?' that is, having a body 
*' fashioned like unto his glorious body," as Moses and 
Elijah certainly had when they appeared with him upon the 
holy mount. If he did not anticipate an immediate en- 
trance at death into the beatific presence, where did he 
expect to be 1 Did he count upon a long interval of dormant 
and unconscious repose before he awoke to the felicities of 
heaven ? Did he believe the soul would sink into a dreary 
lethargy of centuries or chiliads in duration, while the body 
was mouldering away in the dust and passing into unnum- 
bered new relations? This, surely, would not be to be 



* No one can fail to be struck with the evangelical tone of Cicero's 
language on a similar subject, in his Tusculan Questions : — "posse ani- 
mos, quum e corporibus exeesserint, in coelum, quasi in domicilium suum, 
pervenire/' that souls may, vjhen they have forsaken their bodies, come 
into heaven as into their own domiciL 



THE SCRIPTURAL AKGUiMENT. 261 

absent from the body. It would rather be to be with the 
body, if the soul is so entirely united with its destiny, that 
it sleeps with it in the grave, and only awakes when it 
awakes. Yet, even upon this ground, how great the absur- 
dity of the soul's having an unconscious lodgment in the 
perished body ! Should it be said that Paul hoped indeed 
to be at once with the Saviour in his disembodied spirit, we 
would then inquire to what purpose he speaks of being 
' clothed upon,' when unclothed of his present tabernacle, if 
such an investment were not a necessary preliminary to his 
being with Christ? On every hand, then, we see the diffi- 
culties that cluster about the theory of a long interval be- 
tween death and the resurrection. On the theory we advo- 
cate, they vanish at once. As our Saviour said, Mark 14. 
c^S, in speaking of his resurrection, " I will destroy this 
temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will 
build another made without hand^^^ which must certainly 
refer to his spiritual body in contradistinction to his natural, 
so also the * house from heaven not made loith hands^' for 
which the apostle longed, was to be immediately assumed ; 
for we have already seen that the view we are maintaining 
brings the resurrection of Christ into the most signal con- 
formity with that of his people. Not only are their vile 
bodies to be fashioned like unto his glorious body, but as 
the transition, in his case, from tiie one into the other was 
immediate, so likewise is it to be in theirs. This construc- 
tion relieves the present text from all embarrassment, while 
no other does. Nothing is n^iore clearly asserted in the 
compass of the whole Bible, than that he that believeth in 
Christ shall never die, and that whosoever heareth and 
keepeth his sayings shall never see death — declarations, as 
far as we can perceive, utterly at variance with the idea of a 
suspended consciousness of an indefinitely long duration. 
But if the man lives, does he not live in his house which is 
from heaven, and is not this the resurrection-body? Was 
not the angel who appeared to John, Rev. 22. 9, and 

12* 



262 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

declared himself to be one of his ^' fellow-servants and of his 
brethren the prophets," clothed in such a body? And, if 
he, why not others ? 

V. 10. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Tohg yocQ itdviag rnxag cpa- For we must all appear 

vsomd-nvai 881 euTTQOG&Ev Tol before the judgment-seat of 

o- . ^ ~ v ^ ~ " Christ ; that every one may 

"V f, ^ \ ^ ~ receive the things done m his 

fAi(y7]tai e-Aaaiog^^ za dia tou body, according to that he 

aoji^iarog, noog atTZQa^sv, bite hath done, whether it be good 

ayadov eira xayiov. or bad. 

The original ^ for we must all appear' (covg yao ndviag 
rjixag cpoivs(}M&7]vaL del), means properly, we nmst all be mani- 
fested. The idea conveyed is something more than that of the 
simple fact of our standing or being pi^esented at the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ. It implies the development which then 
is to be made of character, as the ground of retribution. 
But as to the general bearing of the text upon the subject 
before us, we shall first adduce the remarks of Locke, in his 
reply to the Bishop of Worcester. '^ The next text your 
lordship brings, to make the resurrection of the body, in your 
sense, an article of faith, are these words of St. Paul, * For 
we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,' &:.c. 
To which your lordship subjoins this question : ' Can these 
words be understood of any other material substance, but 
that body in which those things were done V A man may 
suspend his determining the meaning of the apostle to be, 
that a sinner shall suffer for his sins in the very same body, 
because the apostle does not say that he shall have the very 
same body when he suffers, that he had when he sinned. 
The apostle says indeed — ^ done in his body.' The body he 
had, and did things in, at five or fifteen, was no doubt his 
body, as much as that which he did things in at fifty, w^^his 
body, though his body were not the very same body at these 
difTerent ages. And so will the body which he shall have after 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 263 

the resurrection be Jus body, though it be not the veri/ same 
with that which he had at five, or fifteen, or fifty. He 
that at threescore is broke on the wheel for a murder he 
committed at twenty, is punished for what he did in his body, 
though the body he has, i. e. his body at threescore, be 
not the same, i. e. made up of the same individual particles 
of matter that that body was which he had forty years be- 
fore. When your lordship has resolved with yourself what 
that same immutable ' he' is, which, at the last judgment, 
shall receive the things done in his body, your lordship will 
easily see that the body he had when an embryo in the 
womb, when a child playing in coats, when marrying a 
wife, and when bed-rid, dying of a consumption, and, at last, 
which he shall hnve after the resurrection, are all of them ^2*5 
body, though neither of them be the same body, the one with 
the other.'"' P. 171. 

This, it is true, touches exclusively, though very perti- 
nently, the question of the identity of the body before and 
after the resurrection, and we rather infer that Mr. Locke 
held to the resurrection of a rn at erial body ^ while he stren- 
uously contended that no arguments from Scripture or rea- 
son could prove it to be the same body. We leave his opin- 
ions on both points to carry their own weight to the mind of 
tiip K^ori^- r^-^ ourselves, we have only to say, that we 
perceive in the text no allusion to the resurrection of the 
body ; and with any thing else that may be taught by it we 
have at present no concern. He that has sinned or obeyed 
in the material body may properly be rewarded or punished 
in the spiritual body ; as it is in that that the true personality 
of every one resides. The idea that the pi^esent body must ne- 
cessarily share in the punishment of the sins which it was 
instrumental in committing, is one that receives no counte- 
nance from the decisions of a sound reason. The body, as 
such, is no more capable of suffering than the sword, the 
pistol, or the bludgeon, with which the murderer may 
have taken the life of a fellow-being. Sensations, it is true. 



264 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 



are received tlirougJi the body, but the body is no more the 
seat or subject of them, than the telescope is the subject of vis- 
ion. E en in the present life, it is the spiritual body which 
feels the sensations of pleasure or pain. How much more 
in the life to come ! 



1 Thess. IV. 13-17. 



GR. 



Ov d'sXofjiev ds vixag dyvosTv, 
ddsXcpoi, 71£q) tojv yiBKOiiiri^i- 
vcov, IV a [X7J IvTZTJad^s, xad-^g 
^ai 01 lonoi ol [xi] syovtsg il- 
TTida, 

El yccQ Tiiarsvofxev, on 'Irj- 
60vg a7T8&av8 y.ai avian], ov- 
TOO }ia\ 6 d^tog Tovgxoif.irid'ivrag 
dia rov ^Itjaov a^at 6vv avrop. 

TovTO yaQ vjuv liyojjiev sv 
loy^ y.vQiov, on rjiiHg ol ^oov- 
reg oi ttsqiXeitioiasvoi eig Ttjv 
naQovalav rov xvqiov ov pirj 
q)&d6cof/,sv Tovg xoi/Ar^d^evTag- 

'^Ori avTog 6 'AVQiog iv ke- 
Xsmuari, iv cpoovrj aQ)[ayyi}.ov 
aal iv adlmyyi '&sov xara^^- 
aerai kn ovQcivov, 'aoI ol t^py- 
Qol iv XQiazcp avaarriaovxai 

TZQMtOV, 

''Enurci ij^iEig ol <:^SiV78g ol 
TiEQiXeiTTOiASPOi dfA,a ovv av- 
toTg (XQTiayfjaofAsOa iv v£cps- 
Xaig Big dnavrrjaiv rov y.vQiov 
elg dsQcc' yal ovtco TzavTOts 
ovv '^vQiop iaoixs&a. 



ENG. VERS. 

But I would not have you to 
be ignorant, brethren, concern- 
ing them which are asleep, that 
ye sorrow not, even as others 
which have no hope. 

For if we believe that Jesus 
died and rose again, even so 
them also which sleep in Jesus 
will God bring with him. 

For this we say unto you by 
the word of the Lord, thai we 
which are alive and remain un- 
to the coming of the Lord shall 
not prevent them which are 
asleep. 

For the Lord himself shall 
descend from heaven with a 
shout, with the voice of the 
archangel, and with the trump 
or ijroaftxisa i.u^ j^r^ri in Christ 
shall rise iirsi : 

Then we which are alive 
and remain shall be caught up 
together vv^ith them in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the 
air : and so shall we ever be 
with the Lord. 



The general scope of this passage is obviously to minis- 
ter consolation to those addressed, under the grief arising 
from the death of Christian friends. It would seem that 
their sorrow had acquired additional poignancy from an ill- 
founded impression that the full felicity of the kingdom of 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 265 

Christ could be enjoyed by those only who should be alive 
at his coming, which they, in common with the mass of 
Christians at ihat day, and the apostles themselves, antici- 
pated as speedily to occur.* Assuming, then, this expecta- 
tion of the Lord's appearing, and in the lifetime of that 
generation, to be true, the apostle applies himself to remove 
those gloomy apprehensions respecting their departed friends. 
He assures them that so certainly as Christ died and rose 
again, so those that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him ; 
and the circumstances of this advent he then goes on to 
describe : '' For this we say unto you by the word of 
the Lord," meaning that he here repeats what Christ him- 
self had declared, Matt. 24.30,31, ''They shall see the 
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and 
great glory ; and he shall send his angels with a great sound 
of a trumpet," &c. In the general interpretation of the pas- 
sage a serious embarrassment arises from the difficulty of^ 
determining the precise import of «|ff, will bring. To what 
does this refer ? Does it imply that when our Lord descends 
from heaven, with this predicted pomp and glory, he will be 
attended by an accompaniment of, the saints who have for- 
merly slept in him ? If so, the following is perhaps the view 

- liie above remark is made in full mindfulness of the fact, that Paul 
does elsewhere in his epistles (2 Thess. 2. 2) expressly warn his disci- 
ples against the impression that the day of Christ was so near at hand as 
many of them were led to suppose. He assures them that the coming of 
that day was to be preceded by a signal apostasy and the revelation and 
destruction of the man of sin. But we see nothing in his language which 
ndicates that he supposed this series of events to be of distant occurrence. 
There is no evidence that he personally understood the exact nature of 
this apostasy, or was able to judge of the time that would be requisite to 
-•ring it to a head. The announcement therefore does not, in our view, 
stand in the way of our general conclusion, that he, and all other Christians 
'>f that age, did anticipate a speedy coming of Christ and a consummation 
•mbracing the resurrection of dead and the rapture of hving saints. All 
I 'lat he intended, as we conceive, to intimate in the passage referred to 
•v/as, that that day was not so immediately instant ^s they imagined. 



266 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

which is to be deduced from the apostle's language : When 
the lord comes at this crisis, he shall bring with him his 
saints who have slept in him. But here an objection would 
at once occur — How can they come with him, unless previ- 
ously they were with him ? And how can they be with him, 
unless they shall first have risen for that purpose? And 
how can they have risen, without having undergone a resur- 
rection ? And how can they have been the subjects of this 
resurrection, if they are yet reposing in the dust ? This 
natural query the apostle proceeds to obviate in the sen- 
tence that follows ; '' The dead in Christ (i. e. those that 
have slept in him) shall rise first," i. e. shall rise, or shall 
have arisen, 'previously. That this is a probable sense of 
nQ(x)Tovz=z7iQ6TBQov , lu this conncxion, may be shown by an 
appeal to the usus loquendi in the following passages : Matt. 
5. 24, " Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, 
Jirst {ngojTOV^ previously) be reconciled to thy brother," &/C. 
Matt. 12. 29, *' How can .•)ne enter into a strong man's house 
and spoil his goods, except hetjirst {jiqwtov^ previously) bind 
the strong man ?" Mark 9. 11, 12, '' Why say the scribes 
that Elias must j^rs^ (tt^cDtoi', previously) come? And he 
answered and told them, Elias verily comeXh first {ttomtov, 
previously), and restoreth all thin^^s." 2 Thes. 2. 3, '' For 
that day shall not come except there como ^ f^u^r^^r away 
first {ngmov, previously).'' 1 Tim. 3. 10, '' And let these 
^[so first (nqmov, previously) be proved." The evidence, 
therefore, may be considered strong, that this is the true 
sense of the term in this connexion, and the clause, bemg 
thrown in for the purpose of meeting a tacit objection, 
ought to have been enclosed in a parenthesis. The whole 
pas'sage will then read thus : '' For the Lord himself shall 
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the 
archangel, and with the trump of God (and the dead in Christ 
shall have previously arisen) ; then we which are alive and 
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds 
(€> vB(filaig, in clouds, i. e. in multitudes, as the article is 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 267 

wanting), to meet the Lord in the air." The phrase w/iw uvv 
avroTg aoTTayrjo-oued-a^ shall be caiiffJit up together icith them, 
means not on this view so properly that ive shall he caught 
up in company ivith them — for how could they be caught up 
when they were already descending with Christ from hea- 
ven ? — but simply, we shall be caught up to he with them. 

What inference, then, more fair, than that these words, 
instead of teaching the resurrection of the body at the com- 
ing of Christ, teach directly the reverse? The entire stress 
of the argument rests upon this very assumption, that the 
saints who had slept in Jesus w^ere with him in heaven, as, 
otherwise, how could they come with him when he descends 
from heaven ? But if they were with him in heaven, must 
they not previously have arisen, in order that they might 
be with him and come with him? And if they come with 
him, must it not be in resurrection-bodies? Is it for a mo- 
ment conceivable that this locomotion would be predicated of 
men's intellectual spirits separate from all kind of corporeity ? 
How can such spirits be said to come? Surely, if the sleep- 
ers in Jesus have previously risen, they must exist in resur- 
rection-bodies, and therefore must come in resurrection- 
bodies, as our Lord himself comes. The statement of the 
apostle divides the righteous, of whom alone he is here 
speaking, into two great classes, those who had died in 
Christ, and those who should be alive at his coming. These 
latter, he says, shall not prevent, i. e. shall not have any ad- 
vantage over, the former, and therefore there was no ground 
for any grief at their earlier departure. The saints who 
had died had arisen in spiritual bodies. They had sojourn- 
ed with Christ in heaven from the day of their death. They 
would form the glorious retinue of their descending King 
when he came the second time without sin unto salvation. 
The living saints would then be changed and caught up in 
multitudinous clouds to meet the Lord and his train in the 
air, and so should they ever be with the Lord. What in- 
timation is there here of the resurrection of dead bodies ? 



26S THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

*' Who," says Pres. Dvvight {Serm. 164), " are those whom 
God wiil bring with Christ at this time ? Certainly not the 
bodies of the saints. . . . The only answer is, he wiil bring 
with him ' the spirits of just men made perfect.' " The al- 
lusion is probably to such passages as the following : Zech. 
14. 5, ^' The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints 
with thee'^ Jude 14, '' And Enoch the seventh from Adam, 
prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh 
with ten thousand of his saints ^ With these prophetic 
intimations familiar to his mind, it was not unnatural that 
he should speak of Christ's being accompanied on his return 
to earth with these glorified legions of saints ; and if this 
view be admitted as sound, it will perhaps afford the true 
key to his language, 1 Cor. 15. 35 : *' How are the dead 
raised, and with what body do they corne V^ i. e. not with 
what body do they come up out of the ground, but with what 
body do they come down from heaven ? 

The foregoing interpretation, it will be seen, depends upon 
the correctness of the idea assum.ed in the outset,thal t'^n^ will 
bring, refers to the descent of Christ at the era of the second 
coming. That this is not a violent supposition we are well 
persuaded ; and yet, at the same time, we are constrained to 
acknowledge that, taken in the connexion, it does not strike 
one as quite so natural and obvious as that w^hich is involved 
in the common rendering, which represents it as a mere 
continuous announcement of the order of events. There is, 
perhaps, a more unforced air of probability in the construc- 
tion, which makes the writer to say that, as God intends to 
have his people ultimately with him, as well as Christ their 
head, so one great object of his second coming might well 
be represented to be to gather home his sleeping and living 
saints in one united company, the first class to be reclaimed 
from the power of the grave, in which they had been resting, 
and the other to be translated, which would of course bring 
them into the same condition with that of the risen dead. 
Accordingly, in pursuing the thread of the announcement, 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 269 

he may be considered as saying, that the first step will be to 
raise the sleepers in the dust, and invest them with their 
resurrection-bodies. When this is accomplished, he will im- 
mediately proceed (t-ieiTa, then) to work that stupendous 
transformation upon the living saints which shall fit them 
for entering into a spiritual kingdom ; and this effected, both 
classes shall be caught together (afia) in clouds, or vast 
numbers, to meet the Lord in the air. Our own view of 
the true doctrine of the resurrection would be better sub- 
served by the other exposition, but we feel not at liberty to 
put the least constraint upon tlie out-speaking purport of 
any text, and therefore do not hesitate to admit that a very 
hiorh degree of probability marks this latter construction. 
Consequently we do not refuse to abide by it. 

How then, it may be asked, shall we avoid the conclu- 
sion drawn from the apostle's language in this passage, that 
the resurrection is to be simultaneous, and destined to occur 
at the second advent ? Our answer will be inferred from the 
previous tenor of our remarks. We have already adverted 
to the principle which we regard as forming the key to this 
kind of diction, wherever it occurs. Christ and the apostles 
expressed themselves on this, and kindred topics, in lan- 
guage conformed to the formulas of speech to which they 
had been accustomed from the necessities of their Jewish 
birth and training. It is, in our view, impossible to divest 
the apostolic statements, on this subject, of their national 
and traditional coloring. The prophetic anticipations of 
that people connected the resurrection with the grand crisis 
of the Messiah's installation as head of his celestial king- 
dom. This event they undoubtedly considered as near at 
hand, and we see not but the present passage receives an 
adequate solution on this hypothesis. To our minds the 
evidence is conclusive, that the apostles actually anticipated 
the occurrence of that event in their own lifetime, and on 
that supposition the writer adopts, in the present text, the 
language appropriate to such an expectancy. If the predict- 



270 



THE DO(:!TRIx>fE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



ed coming were speedily to occur, he would be led by the 
general strain of the Old Testament prophecies, as tradi- 
tionally interpreted, to connect with it the resurrection of 
the dead and the rapture of the living saints; and could he 
but be confirmed in this by the Saviour's declaration that 
that generation should not pass away till the great event of 
the advent had received its fulfilment? Such we deem the 
train of thought in the apostle's mind. 

As to the absolute truth of the announcement, we are, 
as far as we can see, left to collect it from i\iQ general tenor 
of prophecy, for which we have all the advantage of a com- 
pleted canon, embracing the Apocalypse, and a long course 
of providential events subsequently developed. The diffi- 
culty attending the common interpretation, which makes the 
event here described to occur at what is termed ' the end of 
the world,' is, that it brings it into conflict with other 
items in the scheme of eschatology, which are entirely in- 
consistent with the idea of a physical termination of the 
globe, and which are equally authoritative with the present 
oracle. The New Jerusalem state, which is evidently to be 
developed by gradual expansion and amelioration out of the 
present, and which is plainly subsequent to all accounts of 
the resurrection and the judgment, presents an insuperable 
bar to the adoption of the popular construction of Paul's 
language. It is obvious, then, that no view of it can stand, 
which leaves one part of revelation at war with another. 
The common interpretation does; ours does not. 

Phil. III. 21. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

"'Og fX8ta6X7]^a7i6ei to aoj- Who shall change our vile 

ua Tvg raTTtircoaeojg im^v ava- ^.^^Y^ ^hat it may be ilxshioned 

' ' ~ , -- St "r hke unto his morious body, ac- 

uoQ^ov zm 6coiiari^ rr^g 8o^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^j^.^^ ^4'^^^_ 

avTOV, Kara tjjv EvsQjiav tov by he is able even to subdue 
dvvaad-ai avrov koI vnord^ai all things unto himself. 
savrq) tk Tiavta* 

We have ^here another instance of that remarkable 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 271 

usage upon which we have before commented, in which 
' body ' is used in the singular, whereas, on the common ap- 
prehension, we can see no reason why the plural ' bodies ' 
should not have been employed. From repeated intima- 
tions we are assured that our resurrection-bodies are to be 
of the same nature with that of Christ. Of such bodies is 
the whole redeemed and glorified church to be possessed. 
A specimen of them was afforded at the transfiguration, 
when the bodies of Moses and Elias, the models of those of 
all the saints, were evidently of the same divine structure with 
that of Christ, ethereal in substance and clothed with a robe 
of light. The present we deem an announcement of a sim- 
ilar condition, as the prospective lot of the whole multitude 
of the saints in the day of their final manifestation ; an event 
not to transpire in the natural, but in the spiritual world. 
Into such a state we have endeavored to show that the right- 
eous enter individually at death, and the evidence of this 
must first be got rid of before we can understand the lan- 
guage of Paul in this text as teaching a contrary doctrine. 

But, in fact, even if the words be taken as they usually 
are, as having reference to the change that shall pass 
upon the bodies of individual believers at the last day, how 
can it be shown that the apostle has not rather in view 
the translation of the living, than the resurrection of the 
dead saints ? He expressly says elsewhere, of some whom 
he denominates * we,' that ^^ we shall not all sleep, but we 
shall all be changed." And this is to take place at the time 
of Christ's second manifestation from heaven, which we 
have already seen the apostle anticipated as not unlikely to 
occur in his own day. Now the allusion in the present 
passage is evidently to the same time; for he says in the 
preceding verse, '^ For our conversation is in heaven ; from 
whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; 
who shall change," &/C. How then can it be proved that 
this * chancringr the vile bodies ' does not concern the same 



•272 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



persons ? In other words, that he speaks of translation, and 
not of resurrection ? 



2 Tim. II. 16-19. 



Tag ds ^e^iqlovg xsvocpcovi- 
ag TicQUGTaao * btti ttIhov yocQ 
7T()ox6\pov6iv aae^iag, 

Kai 6 loyog avTcop cog yciy- 
yQaiva voixov e^ti ' cov iaiiv 
^TfA^aiog VAU 0Ll7]Tog, 

Oinveg tzeqI rrjv alri&eiav 
fi<jT6)[}](jav, Xeyovzeg Trjv dvd- 
araaiv ridrj ysycpercu, 'acu dva~ 

rQSTTOVOl Z7]V TiVCOV 7X161 IV. 

'0 fXEvtoi aT8Q8og d^ixiXiog 
Tov d^eov 8atr]A8v, iyoav rrjv 
aq)Qayida ravzriv * 'iyvod avql- 
og rovg bvrag avzov, xal ano- 
(777/70) dno ddixiag nag 6 bvo- 
l.id'Qcov TO ovofia y.vQiov. 



ENG. VERS. 



Bat shun profane and vain 
babblings ; for they will in- 
crease unto more ungodliness: 

And their word will eat as 
doth a canker: of whom is Hy- 
meneus and Philetus ; 

Who concerning the truth 
have erred, saying that the re- 
surrection is past already ; and 
overthrow the faith of some. 

Neverthelesss the foundation 
of God standeth sure, having 
this seal, The Lord knoweth 
them that are his. And, Let 
every one that nameth the 
name of Christ depart from 
iniquity. 



In order to the correct understanding of this passage, 
it would seem to be necessary to ascertain, if possible, what 
resurrection they maintained to be already past, and on what 
grounds their opinion rested. But this is not an easy mat- 
ter. Commentators, for the most part, intimate that the 
apostle, by 'the resurrection,' means the general resurrec- 
tion, and, consequently, the error of Hymeneus and Philetus 
they suppose to have consisted in affirming that the true 
resurrection was the spiritual resurrection of the saints from 
the death of trespasses and sins. But in this view it will be 
seen that the one idea is destructive of the other. The gen- 
eral resurrection is understood to include all mankind, good 
and bad, while the spiritual resurrection is the peculiar priv- 
ilege of the saints of God. Such a resurrection they could 
not of course have substituted in their theory for a general 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 273 

resurrection of the whole race. Nor, upon this supposition, 
could they have asserted a spiritual resurrection to he past 
already ; for it could not be past till it had embraced all 
who are destined to be the subjects of it. But the process 
of spiritual resuscitation had then but just commenced ; the 
Lord was adding to the church daUy such as should be 
saved; and there is no conceivable ground on which they 
could have affirmed such a resurrection to be j^ast. So long 
as a single soul remained to be brought out of darkness into 
light, the resurrection, thus understood, must be considered 
as progressive, and not diS past. In the absence of any defi- 
nite knowledge of what they really held on the subject — as to 
which all ecclesiastical testimony halts — it cannot be prop- 
erly affirmed that the error charged upon their creed by the 
apostle is one that is chargeable also, on the same grounds, 
upon the view we are now advocating. This view makes 
the resurrection indeed to he passing, but not past. Men 
are not raised from the dead till they die, and they do not die 
till they live. It is only past when it has embraced the to- 
tality of its subjects. 



We have now gone over all the important passages in the 
Gospels and Epistles usually cited as proving, either by di- 
rect assertion or plain implication, the doctrine of ^/«e resur- 
rection of the body. We are not conscious to ourselves of 
having submitted them to any other than a fair and uncen- 
surable exegesis. We have at least honestly endeavored to 
elicit the true mind of the Spirit as conveyed i)y them, and 
though we have undoubtedly made our previous inductions 
a criterion by \\hich the absolute truth o{ the Scriptural dic- 
ta on the subject are to be judged, yet we conceive that we 
have taken no unwarrantable license in adopting this course. 
If our rational results are sound and impregnable, is it 
possible that the true sense of Scripture should be in con- 



274 THE DOCTIUNE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

flict with them 1 Is not all truth of necessity in harmony 
with itself? 

How the evidence adduced may strike the reader, we 
know not. To our own minds it is amply sufficient to es- 
tablish the conclusion, that the resurrection of the body is 
not a doctrine sanctioned either hy reason or revelation, as 
far as 2ce have hitherto interrogated the testimony of each. 
It now remains to consider the tenet in certain other Scrip- 
tural relations, and to see how far the main conclusion is 
confirmed or confuted by their genuine purport. It will be 
seen that the fundamental principle of our interpretation re- 
cognizes the prominent influence of the Judaic Christology 
and Eschatology in moulding the New Testament disclo- 
sures of the sublime future. If the soundness of this princi- 
ple be denied, our inferences will of course so far lose their 
force ; but in that case it will certainly be admitted as a fair 
requisition, that the denier should show, upon adequate 
grounds, that the Jewish church was, as a body and in all 
ages, mistaken in the sense of their own prophecies. That 
they mistook the 'person of their expected Messiah, is admit- 
ted, but that they equally mistook ihe fortunes and issues of 
the kingdom which he was to establish, is not admitted. The 
great work of the Christian interpreter is to show that the 
main Messianic anticipations of the Jews are and are to be 
actually fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. 



CHAPTER IX. 

The Resurrection vieioed in connexion with the Judgment. 

It is by no means improbable that the conclusions to 
which we have come, and which we have so distinctly pro- 
pounded in the foregoing pages, would meet with a far 
readier assent on the part of our readers, were it not for 
their apprehended conflict with the clear teachings of Scrip- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 275 

ture ill respect lo what is termed ^ the final judgment' — 
* the day of judgment' — ^ the judgment of the great day/ 
&:c., as it is variously denominated. The intimations of 
this august event are deemed so clear and unequivocal in 
themselves, and so indissolubly inwrought into the texture of 
those announcements which predict the resurrection, that it 
is at once assumed, that whatever process of reasoning 
or exposition goes to modify our established views of the 
one, must necessarily bear with equal weight upon those of 
the other. This is undoubtedly true. The whole system of 
Scriptural Eschatology, though made up of distinct or dis- 
tinguishable parts, is yet so framed into a compact and sym- 
metrical whole, that no one portion of it can be in any way 
dislocated from its fixed junctures and attachments, without 
affecting the integrity of the entire fabric. If the antici- 
pated judgment really coincides, according to the true tenor 
of revelation, in point of time with the resurrection, and the 
real resurrection ensues immediately at death, then all argu- 
ment is useless either in support or in denial of the fact, 
that each indidvidual soul must be, in effect, judged as soon 
as the spirit leaves the body. Our sentence, in truth, is 
passed before our graves are dug. And that such a fact 
nmst have a most decided bearing upon the tenet of a gen- 
eral judgment, to he held at some particular epoch of time 
or eternity, is obvious at a glance. Still it is very possible 
that this altered view may be the true one. If adequate 
evidence has been adduced that the resurrection, upon ac- 
curate inquest, actually expands itself into an unfolding pro- 
cess, covering the lapse of successive generations, it is far 
from inconceivable that the judgment, when submitted to 
the same rigid test, may present itself under the same as- 
pect ; and that, too, without losing any portion of its power as 
a great moral sanction under the divine administration. 
Constituted as men are, the idea of ^ final adjudication or- 
dained to sit upon the conduct of all mankind in the present 
life, is, indeed, in every view, an indispensable element in 



276 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

our conceptions of the rectoral dominion of Jehovah over 
accountable creatures, nor can any system of interpretation be 
correct which would go to abolish this conviction from the 
human mind. At the same time, we are equally firm in 
maintaining, that the inward demand for such a retributive 
adjustment, created by our moral instincts and rational de- 
ductions, is satisfied in the anticipation of the simple fact, that 
such an equitable award shall really be made upon our en- 
trance into the world of spirits ; and, moreover, that it shall 
result from necessary Ima, rather than arbitrary appointment. 
The moral power of the doctrine of a 'judgment to come,' 
does not truly rest so much upon the imagined form or con- 
comitants of the process, or upon its being held upon the 
assembled multitude of its subjects, at a particular time or 
place, or as marked by certain forensic solemnities, as 
upon its bearing upon individual character and destiny. 
We do not doubt, indeed, that the impressiveness of such an 
anticipated futurity is, to the mass of men, materially en- 
hanced by the array of that awful imagery with which the 
scene of judgment, from its Scriptural presentation, is usually 
associated in their minds. But we are still unable to resist 
the conclusion, that tlie essence of judgment is adjudication, 
and that this is independent of time, place, and circum- 
stance. 

And here, by way of taking off any thing of a startling 
air that may pertain to this position, let it be remarked, that 
whatever systematic theory we may have adopted on the 
subject, it is, nevertheless, certain that the current senti- 
ments of all Christians do, in fact, involve substantially the 
same belief. No article of any creed in Christendom is 
more universally or unhesitatingly held than that each indi- 
vidual enters at death upon an eternal state of retribution. 
According to the prevailing moral character in which he 
makes his exit from the body, he either soars an angel, or 
sinks a fiend. Lazarus died, and was carried by angels to 
Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and in hell lift- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 277 

ed up his eyes being in torment. This is a virtual judgment. 
No force of reasoning can rebut, no gloss of rhetoric can 
sophisticate, the self-evident position, that an act of the divine 
adjudication which seals to the joys of heaven or the woes 
of hell a departing spirit, is as truly a sentence of life or 
death — as real an award of eternal judgment — as would be 
that which should be pronounced in the thunder-tones of 
Sinai, from the great white throne visibly set and surrounded 
by circling myriads of the hosts of heaven. Consequently, 
no subsequent judicial sentence can be conceived as revers- 
ing that which is in effect passed at the instant the soul leaves 
the body; nor can the object of such a general assize as is 
usually understood to be announced under the title of the 
* general judgment,' be to enact de novo a process which has 
really been accomplished upon each individual of the race as 
he entered, in his turn, the v/orld of retribution. 

We believe there are very few minds to which the inquiry 
has not suggested itself. For what purpose are the souls of the 
righteous and the wicked, after subsisting for ages in heaven 
and hell, to be reclaimed from their mansions of bliss or wo, 
and summoned together before the dread tribunal of Jeho*- 
vah, there to receive a sentence which assigns them respec- 
tively to the same lot, in effect, with that upon which they had 
entered in the day when*' God took away their breath f 
And who, that has proposed the question, has ever received 
to it a perfectly satisfactory answer? We know, indeed, that 
the inv/ard interrogations that arise on this score are usually 
silenced, rather than solved, by reference to certain vague 
analogies which it is supposed may obtain in this matter, 
drawn from the forms of judicial procedure among men, 
by which the culprit is often imprisoned before he is fornially 
tried, and, after being tried, before he is executed. But on 
the ground of this species of analogy — the application of 
which to the case of the righteous is not very obvious — we 
are forced to the admission of an interval of imperfect ret- 
ribution for which it is difficult to find any warrant in thp 

13 



278 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 

Scriptures, and which appears to lead by very natural, if not 
inevitable steps, to some kind of intermediate state very 
nearly akin to that of purgatory^ and upon which, in fact, 
there can be little doubt that the doctrine of purgatory has 
been actually built. 

At the same time it is impossible to blind our eyes to 
the fact, that the w^ord of inspiration is so constructed as to 
give the anticipation of a judgment to come all the moral 
force pertaining to an august solemnity to be held in the 
presence of the assembled universe. Whatever esoteric 
interpretation maybe embraced, we are still safe in adopting 
the Scriptural mode of presentation in all our pulpit refer- 
ences to this event. Nor is it by any means clear that the 
essential truth of the doctrine may not, in one sense, involve 
all the substantial elements which ordinarily enter into our 
ideas of the ' general judgment.' 

We do not question that ends worthy of infinite wisdom 
may dictate the ordainment of some grand crisis in the 
moral history of the universe, for the purpose of revealing — 
of making manifest — in some illustrious way, the righteous 
grounds of a judgment already passed. Nor, as we have 
before intimated, do we see any thing incongruous in the 
idea, that the word of inspiration may be so framed as to 
create the impression, that both the resurrection and the 
final award may ccncentrate themselves to this great epoch, 
simply from the fact that their realized results shall then be 
more signally divulged to all orders of intelligences. At 
the same time we are equally firm in the confidence, that 
as the doctrine of the resurrection gradually discloses 
itself under a phasis different from that of the strict im- 
port of the letter, so also will that of the judgment. A 
multitude of particular passages in which the mass of the 
Christian world have for ages read the announcement of a 
simultaneous judgment, will inevitably, when brought to the 
test of the general tenor of revelation, yield another sense, 
and one which shall imperatively command assent, as soon as 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 279 

it is fairly exhibited. This genei^al tenor of the Scriptures, 
on this subject, may doubtless be ascertained, and this we 
shall attempt to do with a sole and simple regard to truth, 
free from the consciousness of favoritism to any particular 
theory which may justly be deemed the result of ^^ private 
interpretation." 

The principle which lies at the bottom of our expositions 
is, that the New Testament teachings on this theme are hut 
the expansion of the Old, and that although the New Testa- 
ment does frequently recognize, without expressly contradict- 
ing, the erroneous interpretations put by the Jews upon the 
Old Testament, yet the absolute truth of the disclosures 
is capable of being ascertained from the general tenor of 
the whole. If the soundness of this principle is admitted at 
the outset, we shall find ourselves furnished with a key to 
some of the deepest mysteries involved in the words of 
Christ and his apostles. 

In prosecuting the inquiry, the first point that claims 
attention is the true origin of that peculiar form of the ex- 
pectation of a great ' day of judgment,' which stands -forth 
so conspicuously in the gospels and the epistles, and on this 
head we adopt without hesitation the view of Mede, given 
in the following extract [Worhs, p. 76*2) : '' The mother- 
text of Scripture, whence the church of the Jews grounded 
the name and expectation of the Great Day of Judgment, 
with the circumstances thereto belonging, and whereunto al- 
most all the descriptions and expressions thereof in the New 
Testament have reference, is that vision in the seventh of 
Daniel, of a session of judgment when the fourth beast came 
to be destroyed ; where this great assizes is represented after 
the manner of the great Synedrion or consistory of Israel, 
wherein the Pater judicii had his assessor es, sitting upon 
seats placed semicircle-wise before him, from his right 
hand to his left. ' I beheld (says Daniel, v. 9) till the 
thrones or seats were pitched down (namely, for the senators 
to sit upon ; not * thrown down,' as we of late have it), and 



280 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the Ancient of days (Pater consistorii) did sit, &/C., and 
(subaudi, understand) I beheld till the judgment was set 
(that is, the whole Sanhedrim), and the books were opened/ 
Here we see both the form of the judgment delineated, and 
the name of judgment expressed, which is afterwards yet 
twice more repeated, vv. 21, 22, and v. 26. From this de- 
scription it came that the Jews gave it the name of I'^'n di*^ 
and JSSh SJ^D^'^i di'^, the day of judgment, and the day of the 
great judgment ; whence, in the epistle of St. Jude, v. 6, it is 
called Tiglaig iA8ydl7]g Vifj^sgag, the judgment of the great day. 
From the same fountain are derived those expressions in the 
Gospel, where this day is intimated or described ; * The 
Son of man shall come in the clouds of heaven ;' ^The Son 
of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his holy 
angels,' forasmuch as it is said here, v. 1, ^ Thousands 
and thousands ministered unto him,' &/C., and that Daniel 
saw, v. 13, ^* One like the Son of man coming with the 
clouds of heaven, and he came unto the Ancient of days, 
and they brought him (or, placed him) near him,' &c. 
Hence St. Paul learned that * the saints shall judge the 
world,' because it is said that ' many thrones were set,' 
and V. 22, by way of exposition, that ^judgment was given 
to the saints of the Most High.'" 

Of the soundness of this view we are fully persuaded, 
although we differ from the author as to the time of the 
commencement of the ' great judgment,' which he makes to 
be yet future, at the time of the destruction of the fourth. or 
Roman beast, while v^e refer it to the commencement of the 
Gospel kingdom established at our Lord's ascension. The 
judgment runs parallel with the kingdom. Indeed, the very 
term ^ judge,' in Scriptural usage, implies as truly the exer- 
cise of the royal as of the judicial prerogative. The oracle 
of Daniel announces the coming of the King, and the set- 
ting up of the kingdom of the saints, and nothing is clearer 
from the tenor of the prophecy, than that the judgment there 
spoken of is one that is to be prolonged over an extended 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 281 

tract of centuries, as one- form of the kingly sovereignty 
which the Messiah, in conjunction with his saints, is to ex- 
ercise during the whole period of the prevalence of the an- 
tagonist dominion of the fourth Beast and the Little Horn, 
This, therefore, is * the great judgment,' or ' the great day 
of judgment' of the Scriptures of truth — a protracted pro- 
cess flowing on in parallel duration with the w^hole period of 
the Christian dispensation. In the treatise of R. Menasseh 
Ben Israel, '^ De Resurrect. Mort." p. 254, the author, com- 
menting on Is. 2. 12-17, ^* For the day of the Lord of hosts 
shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty,'' 6lc., re- 
marks : *' It is not to be doubted, as we shall demonstrate 
in the sequel, that by the njri';' Gi^^ dai/ of the Lord, the pro- 
phet intends the day of judgment, which is otherwise called 
the day of the resurrection of the dead.' ^ Again, in another 
part of the same treatise (Lib. 3. c. 2), he says, in explain- 
ing Mai. 4. 5, ** That great and terrible day of the Lord is 
the day of judgment, which shall be conjoined with the resur- 
rection.^^ 

It will here be expedient to remount somewhat farther 
back into biblical antiquity, and to show that even the an- 
nouncements of Daniel himself are but the echo of the lead- 
ing purport of the Old Testament oracles prior to his time, 
and the result of the inquiry will be found to bring us to 
still clearer apprehensions of the meaning of the term 'judg- 
ment' in its Scriptural relations. 

It is never to be forgotten that the grand burden of Old 
Testament prophecy is the Messianic kingdom. It is to the 
establishment, the advancement, the universal prevalence, 
and the essential glory of this kingdom, that the ancient pre- 
dictions, as with lines of light, continually point. Among 
the features by which this kingdom, as administered by its 
exalted Theanthropic king, was to be distinguished, that of 
* judgment' stands conspicuous. But the sense of the term 
in this connexion must evidently be determined by a recur- 
rence to the usus loquendi of the sacred writers, and from 



282 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

this it will appear th?it judging is but one branch or form of 
reigning. The prerogatives of ruling and judging centre 
in the same person, and form scarcely a different department 
of the same office. The original Heb. t^S^ shaphat, is de- 
fined by the lexicons to judge, discern, determine, order, direct, 
regulate, govern, and its Greek equivalent TiQlvwis often used 
with the same latitude. Thus, ] Sam. 8. 20, '' We will 
have a Icing over us, that we also may be like all nations, 
that our king may judge us (^d::5123) ;'' i. e. may exercise 
kingly authority over us. So the Judges, Gideon, Samson, 
Jephtha, and others, that presided over Israel prior to the 
reign of Saul, not only officiated as judges, but also, in a 
more general manner, hs rulers, deliverers, protectors, aveng- 
ers of the chosen people, in which character they are doubt- 
less to be regarded as types of Christ in the exercise of his 
royal dignity. The leading predictions concerning him 
cleB.Y\y ey'mce iha.t judgment is essentially connected with 
the princely rule and government with which he was to be 
invested, and they carry with them also the implication that 
this is to be a continued office among or over the nations 
which are to be brought into subjection to his authority. 

In the citation of the following passages from the Psalms, 
we take for granted their Messianic application. This will 
be denied only by those who are largely leavened with the 
German skepticism on this subject ; and though we should not 
hesitate, under other circumstances, to meet the full force of 
the argument on the proper field, yet we cannot deem it here 
necessary, in view of the probable sentiments of a majority 
of our readers. They, we presume, will not refuse to grant 
that the Psalms abound with incessant references to the 
Messiah, which are not expressly certified as such by the 
New Testament writers. In the following, which we deem 
of this class, the implication runs all along through them, 
that the judgment or righteous government spoken of, is to 
he exercised among men on earth, and not in another world. 
Ps. 82. 8, *' Arise, O God, judge the earth, for thou shalt 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 283 

inherit all nations." Ps. 96. 13, '^ For he cometh, for he 
Cometh to judge the earth ; he shall judge the world with 
righteousness, and the people with his truth.". Ps. 98. 9, 
*' For the Lord cometh to judge the earth ; with righteous- 
ness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity." 
This, as appears from the context, v. 4, refers to a period 
when *' all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of 
God," which certainly conducts us to the Gospel dispensa- 
tion. Ps. 9. 8, '^ He shall jW^e the world m righteousness, 
he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness." Ps. 
67. 4, *' O let the nations be glad, and sing for joy : for thou 
s\id\i judge the people righteously, and govern the nations 
upon earthP Ps. 72. 1, 2, 4, ^^ Give the king \\iy judgments , 
O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son. He shall 
jndge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judg- 
ments. . . . He ^\id\\ judge the poor of the people, he shall 
save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces 
the oppressor." Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and other pro- 
phets, reiterate the same testimony. Mic. 4. 3, *'He shall 
judge among many people^ and rebuke strong nations afar 
off." Is. 11. 3, 4, ''He shall noi judge after the sight of 
his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears ; but 
with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove wdth 
equity for the meek of the earth : and he shall smite the 
earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his 
lips shall he slay the wicked." Jer. 23. 5, '' Behold, a king 
shall reign and prosper ; and shall execute judgment and 
justice in the earth." 

In all these passages, which are but specimens of multi- 
tudes of others of similar import, we read the clear pre-inti- 
mations of one grand character of the Messiah's reign. It 
was to be a dispensation o^ judgment ; even as Christ him- 
self says, — '' The Father hath given him authority to exe- 
cute judgment'' And again, John 5. 22, The *' Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the 
Son." As then the setting up of the kingdom of the Son of 



284 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

man was, in fact, the commencement of this grand process 
of judgment, which wsis to run parallel with its duration; 
therefore, our Lord, in immediate prospect of that import- 
ant era, declares, John 12. 31, ^' Now isihe judgment of this 
world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out;" i. e., 
this judgment is just upon the eve of entering on its accom- 
plishment. This is but announcing the fulfilment of the 
Old Testament oracles touching this feature of his adminis- 
tration, and the weight of the testimony is not at all abated 
by the fact of occasional intimations that he declined being 
recognized in the character of jW^e, especially in the case 
of the woman taken in adultery, and of the two brethren 
disputing about the inheritance, and when he said that he 
came not to judge, but to save the world. All this may be 
consistently explained, on the ground that it was not so prop- 
erly at his^r5^ as at his second coming, that he was to enter 
upon the functions of this high dignity. But his second 
coming commenced with that new order of things which is 
in the main to be dated from the destruction of Jerusalem, 
when the session of judgment took its beginning, which is 
to be considered as continuing through the whole period of 
the dispensation. 

In this judicial administration it is moreover the clear 
teaching of both Testaments that the saints were to share 
with Christ. Enoch prophesied, " Behold, the Lord cometh 
with myriads of his saints to execute judgment upon all." 
David says, Ps. 149. 5-9, that to ' execute the judgment 
written is an honor which all the saints are to have.' 
Isaiah also says, ch. 32. 1, " Behold, a king shall reign in 
righteousness, 2lxi& princes shall rule in judgment.'^ Thus, 
too, in the passage already quoted from Daniel, '^ judgment 
was given to the saints of the Most High," and upon this is 
founded the express declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. 6.2, 3, that 
** the saints shall judge the world." Nothing else than this 
is implied in Rev. 2. 26, where it is said of the saints that 
overcome, that they shall ^^ have power over the nations, and 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 285 

they shall rule them with a rod of iron ; as the vessels of a 
potter shall they dash them in pieces." 

Now we deem the evidence decisive, that this economy of 
* judgment' was to commence synchronically with that pre- 
dicted ' coming' of Christ which is so splendidly set forth in 
the vision of Daniel above referred to, where the Son of man 
receives his kingdom from the Ancient of days. But let 
it be borne in mind that this ** coming of the Son of man in 
the clouds of heaven" announced by Daniel, is precisely the 
same coming with that announced by our Saviour in the 
Gospels, especially Mat. 16. 27, 28 : '' For the Son of man 
shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and 
then he shall reward every man according to his works. 
Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which 
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming 
in his kingdom." So again. Mat. 24. 34: ^^ Verily I say 
unto you^ this generation shall not pass till all these 
things be fulfilled." So also. Mat. 10. 23 : " Verily I say 
unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel 
till the Son of man be come."* We hold it to be utterly 
impossible, upon fair canons of interpretation, to divorce 
these predictions of Daniel and of Christ from a joint refer- 
ence to one and the same coming, and that too a coming 
that was to be realized in its incipient stages at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. f We are satisfied, indeed, that that event 



* The words of Mark, ch. 8. 38, when viewed in the connexion, may 
perhaps admit the construction which Lightfoot puts upon them : " Who- 
soever, therefore, shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulter- 
ous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, 
when he cometh in the glory of his Father, and of the holy angels/' This 
Lightfoot understands as implying that the threatened punishment should 
come upon the men of that generation. " He suggests, with good reason, 
that his coming in glory should be in the lifetime of some that stood there." 

t " The true solution of the difficulty seems to consist in a close at- 
tention to the word which is supposed to indicate the complete fulfilment 
of ihe prophecy in that generation. The original expression for the 

13* 



286 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

did not exhaust the import of this pregnant prophecy. We 
doubt not that it embraces a grand series of events — a dis- 
pensation, in fine — extending'through the lapse of hundreds 
of years, down to the period when the kingdoms of .this world 
shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. 
But the commencement of this train of occurrences is to be 
dated from the destruction of Jerusalem. Then it was that 
the * great judgment' commenced, because then the * king- 
dom of the Messiah' took its open and manifested rise, 
though in strict chronology it is to be dated from the ascen- 
sion. The * judgment' and the 'kingdom,' we repeat, can- 
not be viewed apart from each other. The whole current 
of ancient prediction represents them as identical, and 
consequently, as the *judgm.ent' of the nations, under the 
figure of the sheep and the goats in the 25th of Matthew, 
comes in immediate connexion with the display of the 
* coming and kingdom' that is synchronical with the over- 
throw of Jerusalem, there is, we conceive, no alternative 
from the conclusion, that that judgment commenced at that 
time, and has been going on ever since. 



clause ' till all these things be fulfilled/ is tws av iravTa ravra yevrjrac. Now 
the most proper and original signification of the verb yivofjiai is not to be 
completely fulfdled, as it is rendered in the passage before us ; but it rather 
signifies commencement running into subsequent continuance of action. 
Accordingly, the strict rendering of the clause we are now considering 
ought to be, ' this generation shall not pass away till all these things shall 
be, i. e. shall be fulfilling, or, shall begin to be.' In confinnation of this 
reasoning, it may be observed, that the phrase a Set yevicQai ev ra-^^^n in Rev. 
1. 1, is explained on the same principle by Vitringa, Doddridge, Wood- 
house, Dr. Cressener, the Jesuit Ribera, and others. So in Mat. 8. 24, 
I]££o-judj /x£ya? tysvero does not signify that the storm loas over, but was 
begun. In Mat. 8. 16, we have the words oxpias 61 ysvofxevris, the evening 
being come ; in Mark, 6. 2, yevoixcpov aapPdrov, the Sabbath being come. 
John 8. 58, irplv APpaaix yevioQai, before Abraham was born. John. 13. 2, 
6tlTTvov yevofiivov, according to our version is rendered supper being ended ; 
but according to Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Schleusner, &lc., supper 
being come." — Cunninghame on the Apocalypse, p. 313. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 287 

We are well aware how widely diverse is this view from 
that which is generally entertained, and how naturally the 
query will arise ; * Where then is any mention in the New 
Testament of a general judgment, if not here ]' To this 
interrogatory every one must find an answer for himself, as 
our object is to trace the origin of the expectation to its 
genuine source, and to fix the true sense of certain promi- 
nent passages which have indeed usually been regarded as 
referring to it, but which appear to resolve themselves into 
an entirely different application. If our construction of 
these passages is not acceded to, it will devolve upon the 
dissentient to propose some solution that will justify the 
consistency of a hiatus of two thousand years between the 
24th and 25th chapters of Matthew's Gospel, and that too 
when the connective tots, tlien^ evinces to demonstration 
that the whole prophecy contained in these two chapters 
flows on in one uninterrupted series. For ourselves we see 
no possibility, under the guidance of sound hermeneutics, 
of avoiding this construction, and for the sake of the consisten- 
cy of revelation, we rather rejoice in the necessity that is laid 
upon us, as it entirely harmonizes the general scheme. 

Let us once more recite our grand assumption, viz., 
that the basis of the Now Testament doctrine of a general 
judgment is the above quoted prediction of Daniel, announc- 
ino- at once the reigning and judging supremacy of Jesus 
Christ in that kingdom which was established at his ascen- 
sion, and which constitutes what is familiarly known as the 
Christian dispensation. If this assumption b€ well founded, 
our conclusion is irresistible, whatever conflict it may en- 
gender in our previous notions. Nor can it be denied, 
without denying at the same time a canon of paramount 
importance in the interpretation of the New Testament, viz., 
that whatever relates to the distinguishing functions of 
the Messiah, in the administration of his kingdom, is built 
directly upon the Old Testament announcements to that 
effect. There is certainly no principle of exposition in 



288 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

reference to the New Testament more valid than that it 
unfolds the true sense of the Old. The more perfectly we 
can identify the two, the nearer do we come to the sound 
interpretation of both. As to Daniel's judgment being a 
type, a prefiguration, of a general judgment at the end of 
the world, to say nothing of the unscriptural sense hereby 
ascribed to the phrase ^ end of the world,' the theory will be 
seen to vanish at once into thin air when it is recollected, 
that this very oracle of Daniel is itself the grand support of 
such a judgment. Not indeed but that there are numerous 
allusions interspersed through the New Testament to a 
great judgment, but they will be found upon investigation to 
be, in the main, mere ofF-shoots from the parent stock of 
prediction in the present passage of the Old Testament 
prophet. So when this prophecy of Christ is appealed 
to as a proof of a day of general judgment, it is forgot- 
ten that it is the designed explanation of a prophecy 
which does not refer to such a judgment, but to an elon- 
gated judicial process, which flows on commensurate with 
the kingly dominion of the Messiah in this world One 
will be surprised to find to what an extent this circular ar- 
gumentation prevails on this subject. 

The judgment then, above alluded to, of the sheep 
and the goats, in which ther€ is not a syllable of the resur- 
rection, we affirm to be a prolonged process of judgment 
going on from age to age in the boundaries of the Chris- 
tian kingdom or church, the result of which is to dis- 
criminate between the true and the nominal disciples of 
Christ, each of which, according to his character, is dis- 
nvissed at death to his eternal award in the world of retribu- 
tion. This will fully account for the rule of judgment 
which is there brought to view, — viz., the doing good to the 
disciples from a principle of love to the master — and no- 
thing else will. The apostle is clear in the assurance, Rom. 
2. 12, that '^ they who have sinned without law, shall be 
judged without law ;' but love to God and our neighbor is. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



289 



according to Christ, the very essence of the law. This, 
therefore, becomes necessarily the rule of judgment with 
those who had the law. 

Of the justness of this interpretation we now attempt 
still farther proof ^' When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him." We have 
already adduced evidence that the same language is applied 
to the coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, when this 
process of judgment may be said to have more signally com- 
menced. Our Lord, in announcing that event, says. Mat, 
16. 27, '^ For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his 
Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every 
man according to his works ;" i. e. shall institute a process 
of judgment. Can there be a doubt that these expressions 
describe the same event and the same time ? But the time 
is the lifetime of that generation : *^ Verily I say unto you, 
there be some standing here ivhich shall not taste of death till 
they see the Son of vian coming in his kingdom^' The use, 
however, of the present participle * coming ' seems to carry 
with it an implication of an incipient coming, which was to 
be indefinitely extended in its duration. Indeed a leading 
designation of Christ is o ig/oj^inog^ the coming one, i. e. he 
who continues to come by his power and providence from 
age to age. But his judging runs parallel with his coming, 
as will fully appear in the course of our comments.* 

'^ Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Ac- 
cording to the common view of this passage, the ' sitting ' 
here mentioned is a temporary act for the accomplishment 
of a temporary purpose. Our ordinary ideas of judgment 
are drawn from the judicial usages among men, where tri- 
bunals are set and occupied during terms, which being 
completed the judge retires, to resume his duties again at 

^' We wave the citation of a great many passages in proof of this sense 
of the ' coming' of Christ, from the fact that we have gone so fully into 
the argument in our exposition of the 7th of Daniel, in the pages of the 
* Hierophant/ 



91) THE DOCTRINE OF THK PvE;SURRECTION. 

another time or another place, according to a fixed routine. 
Bat this is entirely contrary to the prevailing sense of the 
wort sit (xa&L^sL) here employed. This denotes a perma- 
nent and not an occasional or transient sitting.* Thus in 
the passage in Daniel, on which the whole train of the pre- 
sent prophecy is built, and to which it alludes, we are in- 
formed, ch. 7. 10, '^ Thejudgment was set {h^ittjqlov sjia&las), 
and the books were opened." This imports that the tribu- 
nal was constituted, that the designated judges permanently 
took their seat ; and as the context makes it clear that the 
judgment upon the fourth Beast and the Little Horn was to 
be protracted through a long course oi ages, it is evident 
that no restricted sense of the term can be admitted in this 
connexion. The corresponding Hebrew term to which it 
answers is ::t3;, signifying primitively to sit, but used in a 
great majority of cases for dwelling, inhabiting, perma- 
nently residing. Thus Judg. 9. 41, '* And Abimelech 
dwelt (nir^ — Gr. c-xaS^lasr) at Arumah." 1 Sam. 23. 14, 
** And David abode (ti^iJj — Gr. iy^a&lasv) in the wilderness 
in strong holds, and remained (-^.^ — Gr. ixa&riTo) in a 
mountain," 6lc. 2 Kings 25. 24, *• Fear not to be ser- 
vants of the Chaldees ; dwell (^intb — Gr. Ka&lcrais) in the 
land, and serve the king of Babylon." 

These examples of the ordinary usage might be in- 
definitely multiplied, but it will be more satisfactory to 
see the usus loquendi illustrated in respect to an official 
or authorative sitting, whether legal or judicial. Prov. 
20. 8, '* A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment 
(r*^ ^^?. ^? ^^^^ Tl^.p.— Gr. yM&lai]) scattereth away all 
evil with his eyes." Is. 16. 5, ^^In mercy shall the throne 
be established, and he shall sit (n^*; — Gr. xadelTac) upon it 
in truth, in the tabernacle of David, judging and seeking 

* " Sedere intelligite hahitare, quomodo dicimus de quocunque hom- 
ine, ' in ilia patria sedit, per tres annos," understand by sitting, habita- 
tion, as we say of any one that ' he sat in that country three years." — 
Jerome Symb. ad Catechwn., Lib. I. p. 1388. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 291 

judgment, and hasting righteousness." A case somewhat 
strikingly ia point occurs also in respect to thrones, Ps. 
122. 5: *^For there are set thrones of judgment ('litli'; 
isatb^b ni^^CS — Gr. iyift ixaS^laap d^QovoL sYg xglaLv),^' implying 
obviously a permanent allocation. Ps. 9. 4, '^Thou sattest 
(nntl3^ — Gr. iy,ad^l(Tag) in the throne, judging right." Ps. 
29. 10, '' The Lord sitteth (!:^'5— Gr. y^a^ujai) king for- 
ever." Zech. 6. 13, '* And he shall bear the glory, and shall 
sit (m^'j — Gr. aa&LHTai) and rule upon his throne." In ail 
these cases no doubt can remain as to the import of perma- 
nency being essentially involved in the term. On reference 
to New Testament usage, we find the same sense abundantly 
sustained. Mat. 20. 21, *' She saith unto him. Grant that 
these my two sons may sit (TcaS-iacoaiv) , the one on thy right 
hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.'' Rev. 
20. 4, '* And 1 saw thrones, and they sat (ixa&laav) upon 
them, and judgment was given unto them." This is at 
any rate a sitting of a thousand years, whatever be the true 
location of that period. Mark 16. 19, '' So then, after the 
Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into hea- 
ven, and sat (ixa&las) at the right hand of God." This, as 
already intimated, we conceive to be the same ' sitting' and 
sitting upon the sajne throne with that which is spoken of 
in the chapter under consideration. The theory of Christ's 
occupying a throne distinct from that of his Father, is not, 
that we can find, sustained by the unequivocal evidence of u 
single passage. Rev. 3. 21 comes the nearest toit, but it 
is there declared that Christ's throne is the same with his 
Father's, and the saints' sitting with him upon it merely 
intimates that they shall be in some sense associated with 
him in his royal supremacy. Christ sits upon the throne of 
God in the administration of his kingdom both as king and 
judge. But this is not a throne visible to the outward eye, 
neither is the Judge, nor have we any evidence that either 
of them ever will be. On the contrary, the express intima- 
tion of Scripture is directly the reverse. Heb. 10. 12, 



292 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

*^ But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, 
FOR EVER sat down (exaS^laev) on the right hand of GodJ^ 
This is the seat which he is permanently to occupy. From 
this seat he administers the ' judgment ' which distinguishes 
his reign, and the idea of a future personal coming forth 
and manifestation on the earth, is in our view entirely ab- 
horrent to the scope of this and numerous other scriptures. 
A spiritual kingdom is administered by a spiritual power. 
But, in order to put this point still farther beyond the 
reach of doubt, we will briefly advert to some of those pas- 
sages which speak of Christ's 'sitting at the right hand of 
God,' which, if we mistake not, will be seen clearly to yield 
the inference, that this phrase denotes a permanent session, 
and that whatever judgment he exercises emanates from 
that very seat which he assumed at his ascension, and 
which he never leaves. The parent text to which they 
are all to be referred, occurs Ps. 110. 1 : *' The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand^ until I have 
made thine enemies thy footstool ;" i. e., he was to sit 
during the whole course of events that should result in 
bringing all his enemies into subjection, which naturally 
implies a long lapse of time, as Paul says, Heb. 2. 8, '' We 
see not yet all things put under him." That this truly 
refers to the Messiah, is clear from Rabbinical as well as 
from apostolical testimony. R. Joden in the name of R. 
Chama, said, '^ that in the time (or world) to come God would 
place Messias the King at his right hand, as it is written, 
Ps. 110. 1." Midrash Tillim, Ps. 18. 3. So Moses Haddar- 
san on Gen. 18 : ** Hereafter the holy and blessed God shall 
set the King Messias on his right hand, as it is written, 
Ps. 110. 1." This was an honor never promised to nor 
conferred upon any being but the Messiah : '^ For to which 
of his angels said he at any time. Sit on my right hand until 
I make thine enemies thy footstool." But our Lord could 
confidently say to the chief priests and elders, '' I say unto 
you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 293 

7nght hand of power, and coming in the clonds of heaven.' 
There are two points involved in this passage especially de- 
manding attention. (1.) The original phrase for here- 
after is all uQTij which in the parallel passage, Luke 22. 69, 
is ano Tov v\jv, from noiv, most unequivocally implying the 
speedy and almost immediate occurrence of the event an- 
nounced. Kuinoel remarks that it is tantamount to non ita 
multum post, not so long after ; and quotes an ancient 
scholiast, who expresses it by ^£Ta fii-Agov, after a little. 
To a competent judge of Greek nothing can be more un- 
doubted than that our Lord here speaks of an event which 
was speedily to transpire, and that it can only be by a 
violent wresting of the genuine import of the words to make 
them refer to something that w^as to occur ages subsequent 
to the announcement. We insist with an earnestness little 
short of vehemence upon this sense of the phrase, as we 
feel at liberty, in maintaining ground that will naturally be 
vigorously contested, to fortify ourselves by every fair de- 
fence. The interpretation we have now proposed will be 
seen to be a tower of strength to our main position. (2.) 
The * sitting on the right hand of power ' and the * coming 
in the clouds of heaven,' are evidently spoken of as synchrony 
ical. It is during the time of this session that our Lord 
comes, and comes too, in some sense, in glory ; for in Mat. 
1^. 27, this same coming is described as a ^ coming in the 
glory of the Father and with his angels.' The inference 
therefore is plainly irresistible, that, as this regal sitting com- 
menced at the ascension, and as ihejudicial prerogative com- 
mences at the same time with the regal, of which it is in fact 
but another form, they must run on from that point parallel 
with each other, the interval between the ascension and the 
destruction of Jerusalem being too small to be of account in 
the grand scheme. But nearly with the commencing date of 
this session at the Father's right hand {ano tov vtv, extemplo, 
forthwith), synchronizes the ' coming in glory,' at which 
also our Saviour expressly assures us, Mat. 25. 31, the pro- 



294 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

cess of 'judgment' is to commence: ** When the Son of 
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with 
him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory ; and before 
him shall be gathered all nations." Now what can be more 
certain than that this * sitting upon the throne of his glory/ 
is nothing else than the sitting at his Father's right hand, 
which commenced at the ascension, and which is of such 
a nature that he is still said to * come ' at the same time? 

Obviously, therefore, neither the ' coming,' nor the 
* reigning,' nor the 'judging,' can he personal and visible, 
but must be understood as constituting a spiritual and 
providential administration. Christ's sitting at the right 
hand of God is but his plenary investiture with the dig- 
nity and dominion pertaining to his mediatorial office; 
and this office, in its various departments, he continues to 
exercise onwards from his ascension through the different 
ages of the church, in its militant state on earth.* It is to 
the earthly and current state of the church that the Scrip- 
tures have reference in such passages as the following : 
Eph. I. 19-22, *' According to the working of his mighty 
power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him 
from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the hea- 
venly places, far above all principality, and power, and 
might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not 
only in this world, but in that which is to come : and hath 
put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head 
over all things to his church." The inference is certainly 
strong from all this that the ' sitting at the Father's right 
hand' and the 'judgment' are synchronical, and refer to 
the administration of an earthly kingdom^ and that a per- 

* "■ Christ sitting at the right hand of God, is manifested and declared 
to be the Great Judge of the quick and the dead. Thus to sit doth not 
signify any peculiar inclination or flection, any determinate location or 
position of the body, but to be in heaven with permanence of habitation, 
happiness of condition, regular and judiciary power." — Pearson on the 
Creed, Art. VI. p. 420. 



THE SCRIPTUKAL ARGUMENT. 295 

sonal and visible manifestation is not to be understood in 
regard to either. 

It appears, then, that the genuine import of the phrase 
goes clearly to establish our construction of the judgment 
here announced as an extended period of judicial adminis- 
tration. For surely, if our Lord actually took his seat on 
the throne of judgment at the time suggested, we have no 
reason to suppose that he has ever yet abandoned it. The 
judgment must still be proceeding ; and this consideration 
solves, at once, the purport of the ensuing clause : '^ And be- 
fore him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate 
them one from another, as a shepherd divideth the sheep 
from the goats. '^ These 'nations' are nations in the flesh 
— the nations of Christendom — forming the great body of 
his nominal kingdom. These nations {e&vrj^ Gentiles)^' are 
the perpetual subjects of a judgment administered by the 
application of the inspired word, as the great test of moral 
character, and which is continually discriminating between 
the righteous and the wicked, and assigning, with the most 
unerring equity, to each individual his eternal destiny. Ac- 
cordingly it is said in the close, ''And these shall go away 
(^aTTelevaovjai) into everlasting punishment, and the right- 
eous into life eternal." What can this ' going away' import 
but departure from this life into the joys of heaven or the 
woes of hell ? On what other grounds can this expression 
be predicated of the heirs of life ? From whom — from what 
— do they ' go away,' but from the mortal body ? It is clear, 
in our view, that the terminus a quo is the present world, 
where this stupendous process of judgment is all the while 



* The original word occurs 194 times in the New Testament, in 93 
of which it is rendered by ' Gentiles,' in 94 by ' nations,' in 5 by ' heathen,' 
and in 2 by * people.' The allusion is predominantly to non- Jewish na- 
tions. *'Lxx. satis constanter c^ reddunt \a6s, 'ni^ idi^og, Yulg. gens ; 
unde etiam in N. T., rh IQvr] opponuiitur rC^ Xaco Qeov ^lapafi'X, Luke 2. 32.'' 
— Gesenius. 



296 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

enacting, and from which each one is dismissed to happiness 
or misery, in another world, according to his predominant 
character. As to the ' gathering ^ of these nations ' toge- 
ther,' we fully accord with the reasonings of Dr. Duffield 
(Dissert, on the Proph., p. 344) on this point, however we 
may differ from him on others, that the term does not denote 
local assemblage. As we regard it as unquestionable, that 
the term ^nations' in the context refers to nations in the 
flesh — a term not applied ioihe dead, who are not judged in 
a national but in an individual d^^diQAi"^^ — so as a necessary 
sequence to this, their being ^ gathered together' does not 
imply a local concourse, but simply their being, as it were, 
in full view — under the comprehensive survey — of the Om- 
niscient Judge. This idea is amply confirmed by the general 
usage of Scripture. Gen. 49. 10, '^ The sceptre shall not 
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, 
until Shiloh come ; und unto him shall the gathering of the 
nations he.'' Ps. 102. 19-22, ''For he hath looked down 
from the height of his sanctuary ; from heaven did the Lord 
behold the earth ... to declare the name of the Lord 
in Zion, and his praises in Jerusalem; when the people are 
gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord." 
Here is a gathering before the Lord while he occupies his 
seat in heaven, just as the nations are gathered before Christ 
while he sits on his throne at the Father's right hand. So, 
in the explicit language of Paul, Eph. 1. 10, ''That in the 
fulness of time he might gather together in one all things 
in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on 
earth." These passages are far from implying a local con- 
gregation. 

The view we have now presented aifords, we think, the 



* Rev. 20. 12, 13, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
God, and the books were opened . . . and they were judged every 
man (sKaaros) according to his works." It is evident that two entirely 
different judgments are here described. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 297 

true explanation of our Saviour's promise to his twelve 
chosen disciples, Mat. 19. 28 : *' Verily I say unto you, 
that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when 
the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, ye 
also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
of Israeli There is here, certainly, no reason to doubt 
that Christ's * throne of glory' is the same with that before 
spoken of — his ^ sitting' upon it is the same — the disciples' 
sitting upon their thrones is, chronologically, commensurate 
with his sitting upon his — and, consequently, the * regene- 
ration,' during which they were to occupy their thrones, is 
but another name for that new order of things which was to 
be introduced by the Gospel, and to constitute the leading 
character of the Christian dispensation. Conceiving this, 
then, as the general drift of the announcement, ' the twelve 
tribes of Israel ' must be deemed a kind of figured or pro- 
phetic designation of the nominal Christian church, in the 
midst of which the apostles are to be conceived as enthroned 
and continually exercising judgment by means of their 
writings embodied in the sacred canon.* To the same 



* It is an important remark in this connexion, that three parties are 
to be recognized in the account of the judgment in the 25th of Matthew. 
We have (1) the Judge, (2) the nations, (3) the brethren of Christ. '* Inas- 
much as ye have not done it unto the least of these my Irethren, ye have 
not done it unto me." Now it is not said that these ' brethren ' 
formed a part of the nations arraigned. What can we understand, 
then, but that they were sitting in conjunction Vv'ith him in the seat of 
judgment ? We shall find, hereafter, still farther evidence that the saints 
are not represented as the subjects of judgment, and the fact is undoubt- 
edly sustained by the import of the Saviour's words, John 5. 24, " He 
that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting 
life, and shall not come into judgment (Kpiaiv), but is passed from death 
unto life." The term, it is true, is rendered 'condemnation' in our ver- 
sion, nor do we, by any means, deny that the sense indicated by that term 
is involved in the passage, but it is, nevertheless, the established word for 
'judgment' in the New Testament, and there is nothing to forbid the 
acceptation we have here assigned to it. 



298 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

thing there is probably an allusion, though less restricted, 
in 1 Cor. 6. 2 : *' Do ye not know that the saints [as well as the 
elect twelve] shall judge the world ?" The ultimate basis of 
this is undoubtedly the 7th of Daniel, where the y.QLjriQLov, 
the judging hody^ is represented as composed of myriads of 
the saints. What is said in the next verse of 'judging 
angels' is of equivalent scope. Prophecy, dealing in sym- 
bolic diction, represents men as angels, particularly official 
men, as the ' angels of the churches ' in the Apocalypse are 
the pastors, or the ministry of the churches, and such kinds 
of angels as these the saints were to judge. So again, in the 
mystic style of the Apocalypse, we find the nominal Chris- 
tian commonwealth represented, ch. 7. 4, by the twelve 
tribes of Israel, out of which the 144,000 were sealed. 
The term Israel, as a mystic designation of the Christian 
church, is of frequent occurrence in the epistles of Paul, 
the light of which is to be reflected upon the enigmas of the 
Apocalypse.* Thus, Gal. 3. 29, '' If ye are of Christ, then 

* *' The sitting of Christ upon the throne of David may, on the one hand, 
be reckoned a real succession to David's place, inasmuch as, for the purpose 
of fulfilling the divine promises made to David, Christ actually sprang from 
David, in that same land which his father had possessed, and on account of 
this peculiar relationship v/ith the Jewish people, in the first place thought 
proper to present himself particularly to them as their king so long expected 
and desired, and announce to them the approach of his kingdom. But on 
the other hand, the government of David, held by mere mortal men, for 
a brief space of time, and having jurisdiction only over a small portion of 
the earth, is so far difi^erent from the eternal and widely extended empire 
of Christ, that the throne of Christ cannot be called the throne of David 
except figuratively, inasmuch as that divine government over the Israel- 
ites, which was transferred to David and his posterity, was a shadow and 
image of the divine government over the universe, conferred upon that 
man who sprung from the stock of David. Which being established, it 
follovv'S, that as Christ sits not on the throne of Dav^d itself, but on its anti- 
type, so also the Israelites, over whom Christ reigns, are not only the 
Israelites themselves, but the antitypes of this commonwealth, i. e. the 
whole commonwealth of God, and, in a certain peculiar sense, his church," 
-^Storfs Dissert, on Mean, of '' Kingdom of Heaven," § VI. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 299 

are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
Gal. 6. 16, '^ As many as walk according to this rule, peace 
be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.^' Eph. 2, 12, 
13, 19, ^^ Ye that were without Christ, aliens from the com- 
monwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of prom- 
ise, are now brought ni^h by the blood of Christ, . . 
and are no more strangers and foreigners, hwi fellow citizens 
icith the saints.'^ Out of these mystic tivelve tribes of Israel, 
shadowing forth the ivhole professing church in the Roman 
empire, an election of 144,000 was to be made, and this elec- 
tion constituted all along the Apocalyptic history, which is 
the history of the church, the true Israel, in contradistinc- 
tion from Xhe professing Israel.* 

And let us here remark, that it is to this very sealing of 
the elect Israel here shadowed forth, which is spread ov^r a 
wide lapse of time, that we conceive allusion to be made in* 
these words of Christ : ** And he shall send his angels with 
a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together 
his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the 
other." These * angels ' are the ministers of the everlasting 
gospel, and the ^ trumpet' is a collective term for the seven- 
fold series of trumpets mentioned in the Apocalypse in con- 
nexion vvith the sounding of which the preaching of the 
gospel and the gathering of the elect was to be carried on 
through the whole period of the Christian dispensation. f 



* See this point elaborated with pre-eminent ability, and established 
upon an impregnable basis, in the " Horse x4pocalypticEe" of the Rev. E. 
B. Elliott, published in London, 1844 — a work which no one can well 
read without being grateful for having lived in the age which produced it. 

t *' When Jerusalem shall be reduced to ashes, and that wicked nation 
cut off and rejected, then shall the Son of man send his ministers with 
the trumpet of the gospel, and they shall gather together his elect of the 
several nations, from the four corners of heaven : so that God shall not 
want a church, although that ancient people of his be rejected and cast off; 
but that Jewish church being destroyed, a new church shall be called out 
of the GenlWesr—LigUfoot Heb. and Talm. Exercit. on Mat. 24. 31. 



300 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

This ^ gathering/ however, does not here, any more than 
in the case of the * nations ' before the throne of the Son of 
man, imply a local assemblage. It is a term simply indica- 
tive of their enrolment into the ranks of the faithful, and is in 
fact equivalent to the sealing in the more figured style of the 
prophet. In both cases the brief symbolical prediction 
swells out in the fulfilment into an extended course of events 
embracing centuries of time. This is the genius of inspired 
prophecy. This forms the grand canon of its interpretation. 
Nor can we doubt that the attainment of satisfactory results 
in the field of prophetic investigation will depend upon the 
degree in which this principle is recognized as sound and 
unquestionable. 



CHAPTER X. 



The First Resurrection and the Judgment of the Dead. 

YVe now proceed to avail ourselves of the principle and 
the results brought to view in the preceding chapter, by ap- 
plying them to a passage shrouded in the thickest folds of 
symbolical darkness, with some hopes to " pluck out the heart 
of its mystery." We allude to the twentieth chapter of the 
Apocalypse containing the account of the Millennial reign 
of Christ and the saints, termed '^ the first resurrection," 
and of the * judgment of the dead ' before the great white 
throne. Our object is to show that what is there termed 
' the first resurrection ' aflfords, when correctly interpreted, no 
evidence whatever of the resurrection of the body. As the 
whole system of prophetic Eschatology, w^hen rightly under- 
stood, must form a harmonious whole, it becomes all impor- 
tant to determine how far the oracle before us may be made 
consistent with the views already presented of the meaning 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 301 

of Other passages relative to the Resurrection and the Judg- 
ment. With a view to this we observe, 

(1.) That the Apocalypse in general contains but little 
in the way of announcement that is absolutely new. The 
title of the book itself — ' Apocalypse/ i. e. unveiling — carries 
the implication of its purport. It is the disclosure of the 
inner hidden sense of the mysteries, i. e. the symbolical 
things of the Old Testament. Thus Babylon the great, the 
harlot mother of abominations, is the substantiated truth 
of what is contained in Isaiah respecting the Babylon whose 
character and catastrophe he describes. So the vision of 
the white horse bearing the celestial champion with blood- 
stained garments '\^t\\Q fulfilled verity of the warrior coming 
from Bozrah clad in similar apparel, and performing sim- 
ilar achievements. And so of numerous other items which 
might easily be specified. This unveiling is indeed man- 
aored in such a manner as not to dispense with the use of 
symbols. It is seldom made in plain literal language ; but 
the symbols are of a nature capable of being understood, 
especially by aid of the express interpretations which are 
occasionly interspersed ; and as the book is in the main 
a sort of pictorial history of the church in a continuous 
chain, it is all along supposed that a careful study of the 
history will leave no great difficulty in the application of 
the symbols. 

(2.) Assuming the above as a postulate, it follows that 
wherever a striking parallelism is discovered between the ut- 
terances of the older prophets and of John, the presumption 
is that the inditing Spirit intended that the two should be 
regarded as of identical import. The imagery of Isaiah, 
Ezekiel, and Daniel, is not merely accommodated to the 
purposes of John, but he is to be regarded as the veritable 
expounder of the true-meant sense of the Spirit as expressed 
in the shaded diction of his predecessors. In accordance 
with this, we remark, 

(3.) That the 'judgment' portrayed in the opening of 

14 



302 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the present vision is identical with that of Daniel as related 
in his seventh chapter. This we infer from its general 
scope and character, and from the parallelism of the lan- 
guage in which it is described. Mede's argument on this 
subject is in our view conclusive. ** The kingdom of the Son 
of man, and of the saints of the Most High, begins in Daniel 
when the great judgment sits. But the kingdom of the Apoc- 
alypse, wherein the saints reign with Christ a thousand years, 
is the same with the kingdom of the Son of man and saints 
of the Most High, in Daniel : therefore it begins also at the 
great judgment." He then presents the following tabellat- 
ed view of the parallelism between the two prophecies, 
which is undoubtedly well founded. 

Dan. VII. John XX. 

V. 9. I beheld till the thrones V. 4. I saw thrones, and they 

were pitched down (i. e. till the sat upon them ; 
judges sat.) 

22. And judgment was given And judgment (i. e. authori- 

to the saints of the Most ty to judge, B.) was-givenunto 

High ; them ; 

And the saints possessed the And the saints lived and 

Kingdom (viz. with the Son of reigned with Christ a thousand 

Man, who came in the clouds, years.* 
V. 13). 



The judgment here described we take to be the same; 
and certainly if it be not the same, some adequate reason 
must be assigned for the community of phrase in which the 



* It is, however, to be borne in mind, that as in Daniel the saints' 
reign is not limited to a thousand years, so neither is that mentioned in 
John. The thousand years is merely one grand department of their reign 
severed off from the rest, as a kind of Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) of the 
world's great week — as it was according to their reckoning — ^whereas the 
New Jerusalem that follows answers rather to the Christian eighth-day 
Sabbath, only it is a Sabbath that '' ne'er breaks up." It is this which 
properly constitutes Daniel's everlasting kingdom of the saints. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 303 

two are set forth. But the judgment of Daniel assuredly 
commences synchronically with the commencement of 
Christ's kingdom, and flows on with the flux of his earthly 
sovereignty during the Gospel age. The judgment of John 
therefore must be assigned to the same period. The obvi- 
ous inference from this is, that the Millennium of John must 
be referred to a past and not a future period of history. It 
is merely the designation of one illustrious portion of the 
reign of Christ during the dispensation that commenced at 
his inauguration as king of Zion, of which the second 
Psalm recites the decree. It is not necessary indeed to 
maintain that the thousand years is to be dated, with punc- 
tilious exactness, from the very epoch of his commencing 
kingdom. A considerable margin of time may be allowed 
both before and after the lapse of this Apocalyptic chiliad, 
for preceding and subsequent events ; but what we confi- 
dently affirm is, that it enters into and forms a part of this 
* great day of judgment' which has already extended over 
the space of 1800 years. This follows, in our view, irresist- 
ibly from the legitimate interpretation of the 7th of Daniel. 
We have adduced, we think, irrefragable evidence, in our 
commentary on that book, that the sitting judgment there 
described does cover the period of the Christian dispensa- 
tion down to the era of the destruction of the Fourth Beast, 
or the Roman empire, when the Gospel kingdom begins 
more signally to assume its predicted character of univer- 
sality. Consequently, as the sitting of the Millennial judg- 
ment is described in precisely equivalent terms, we know of 
no possible mode of avoiding the conclusion of the identity 
of the two. The stress of the proof evidently depends upon 
the correctness of the interpretation we have given of the 
true sense of Daniel's oracle ; and to that we refer, as we 
cannot introduce it in extenso in the present connexion.* 



* We may perhaps learn from the view now presented what opinion 
to form of the doctrine of the pre-millennial advent of Christ. The theory 



504 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



But in order to present more distinctly our views of the 
bearing and relations of the whole subject, we will insert 
those portions of the chapter involving the main points. 



Rev. XX. 4-6. 



ENG. VERS. 



Kai tidov d^Qovovg' koi 
Bxd&iaav lit avrovg, yioi 'aqi- 
fxa sdo'&rj amoig- 'aoI tag 
ipv^ccg T(ov TTeTzehxiGfxspcov dca 
rr/v fjLaQrvQiav 'Ii/gov xal 8ia 
70V loyov Tov d^eov, xaJ olzi- 
veg ov TTQogey^vvrjGccv to ^tjqiov 
ovds rrjveiKOva aviov 'aoi ovx 
sla^ov TO idqay^xa sttI to fxsT- 
coTTor xai 87TI 7r]v ^eiQa avToov, 
aai e^rjaav xal i^aGiXevaav 
f^srarov Xqiotov TafiXiaL sjt]. 

01 ds loiTTOl TCOV rS'AQC^V 

ovyi E^rjaav a^Qi taXead^ri xa 
yiha hrj' avrri ij dvdataaig 

MaxaQiog y,ai ayiog 6 syojv 
fit'Qog iv tri dvaordosi trj ttqco- 
T'd ' mi 70V7COV 6 devzeQog 
d^dvaTog ovx fyei s^ovoiav, 
dlX eaovTai leQHg 70v '&80v 
y.al 70V Xqio70Vj ycu ^aoilsv- 
60V at f/87 avrov yiXia h?]. 



And I saw thrones, and they 
sat upon them, and judgment 
was given unto them: and I 
saw the souls of them that were 
beheaded for the witness of 
Jesus, and for the word of God, 
and which had not worshipped 
the beast, neither his image, 
neither had received his mark 
upon their foreheads, or in 
their hands: and they lived 
and reigned with Christ a thou- 
sand years. 

But the rest of the dead lived 
not again until the thousand 
years were finished. This is 
the first resurrection. 

Blessed and holy is he that 
hath part in ihe first resurrec- 
tion: on such the second death 
hath no power, but they shall 
be priests of God and of Christ, 
and shall reign with him a 
thousand years. 



in our judgment is scriptural, and of course irrefutable. The Saviour's 
second advent must, we conceive, be pre-millennial ; for, as we under- 
stand the drift of prophecy, that advent covimenced at the destruction of 
Jerusalem, according to his own declaration. But it was not personal, 
as every one will admit. Still, as we conceive the Millennium long 
since to have passed, our concession leaves us as far as ever from being 
classed among the disciples of Mede, and the advocates of what is gener- 
ally termed the system of Millenarianism. Either they or we are the 
defenders of an enormous prophetical anachronism, and Time alone per- 
haps can determine which. To Time we refer the decision. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 305 

We have here the plain intimation of a 'judgment' 
which is to sit during the lapse of the thousand years; and 
the inference is too obvious to be questioned, that the occu- 
pants of the judgment-thrones are the same with the * souls 
of them that were beheaded.' The employment moreover 
of the term i^aalksvcrav shows that the reigning is combined 
with the judging function in their persons, as it is also in 
that of Christ. The conformity of the phrase to the Greek of 
Daniel is very striking. Thus Dan. 7. 9, o^ &g6voi eTsS^rjaav, 
the thrones were set; 5. 14, wi/tw ido&r] tj agy^rif to him the 
government was given ; and in v. 22, ytal to Tigl^a tdcoTcsv ayloiq 
viplmoVj and he gave judgment to the saints of the Most High. 
This clearly identifies the * judgment' of the two prophets. 

Another point of importance is the terms by which these 
' souls ' are characterized. They are first spoken of as those 
who were beheaded {ns7T£XsxL(7(j,svcov), The origin of the 
word is nsXexyg, an axe, the well known badge of the office 
of the Roman lictors, which naturally refers us to the mar- 
tyrs who perished at a period when the axe was the chief 
instrument of execution, and this of course carries us back 
to a very early era of Christianity, when the power of the 
Pagan Emperors was in the ascendant. Another character- 
istic is their not having ' worshipped the Beast.' This 
lagain transports us to the past, to the time when the Roman 
Beast, prior to the age of Charlemagne, was in the height 
of his power; for this beast received his * deadly wound' in 
the reign of Augustulus, A. D. 480. The martyrs of that 
period are therefore here alluded to. But this * deadly 
wound ' was healed, and the Beast himself revived in the 
animation of his image, upwards of three hundred years after, 
in the reign of Charlemagne ; so that we have again the 
designation of another class of martyrs who did not ' worship 
the image of the Beast, nor receive his mark upon their fore- 
heads or in their hands,' which conducts us to a period still 
later, when the ecclesiastical form of the Roman Empire was 
established. Yet these several classes all ' lived,' in the sense 



306 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

soon to be explained, within the limits of the specified thou- 
sand years, which must necessarily be thrown back for their 
commencing period to a very early epoch of the church. 
On the supposition that the Millennium of John is yet future 
and coincident with the seventh thousand years from the 
creation, we hold it to be impossible to assign a satisfactory 
reason why the saints then living should be characterized 
by attributes that pertain to the pious of another and entire- 
ly different period ; for we strenuously maintain that it is the 
same persons who live, and reign, and judge, and are behead- 
ed, and all too at precisely the same time. They live in the 
midst of and notwithstanding their being put to death, as we 
shall more fully evince in the sequel, and this, as far as we 
can perceive, absolutely necessitates the conclusion that the 
period in question is past. 

These martyred but quickened ' souls ' we are told ' lived 
and reigned with Christ,' i. e., they were assumed into a 
joint regency with him during the period in question. But 
the reigning power of Christ continues in uninterrupted ex- 
ercise on the earth jTroT/i the date of his ascension, and as he 
governs his kingdom by a spiritual and not a personal pres- 
ence — as his administration emanates from his resurrection- 
state — so his saints are here represented as sharing with him 
in a spiritual and resurrection dignity. Though they be- 
come the victims of Pagan and Papal persecution, and seal 
their testimony with their blood, yet their higher and truer 
life their enemies cannot reach. In them is made good the 
Saviour's declaration, *'I am the resurrection and the life: 
he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ; 
and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die.^^ This 
was the life lived by the millennial martyrs. 

We have, then, as we conceive, in this chapter, a con- 
nected view both of the resurrection and the judgment ex- 
tending over the space of a millennium of the reigning supre- 
macy of Jesus Christ, the precise termini of which we are 
not competent, nor do we deem it necessary, to fix with ab- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 307 

solute precision.* It is a matter of more importance to en- 
deavor to determine the grounds on which the state of the 
reicyning and judging saints is here termed *^the first resur- 
rection.'* The true solution, we think, is to be brought 
from our previous exposition of Daniel 12. 2, '^ Many of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," &c. 
This, we have aimedto show, points mainly to a process of 
moral or spiritual quickening which extends itself over a 
prolonged duration included in the Messianic reign. t We 
do not question, indeed, that a national, and even a corpo- 
real resuscitation, in the limited sense before explained, may 
be alluded to in the words of the prophet. But all such ful- 
filments we regard as mere external and sensible types of a 
grand spiritual resurrection which was to distinguish a 
prominent period of the Gospel kingdom, running on through 
centuries of time, and terminating, at last, upon the over- 
throw of the Roman power, civil and ecclesiastical in its 

* J. Marck, a distinguished divine of Leyden, of the last century, thus 
expresses himself upon tliis subject : " We believe that a space perhaps 
about a thousand years is intended : which began with the birth of Christ, 
or with his personal ministry, or at his resurrection, or even with the reign 
of Constantine, or at every one of these in succession, and flowed ontillit 
broke forth into Antichristian and Mohammedan impiety, spreading more 
and still more. Satan was then bound by Christ more closely than before, 
by being impeded in seducing the nations ; martyrs and other believers, as 
it respects their souls, living and reigning with Christ on his celestial 
throne, and forward to all eternity ; wliile the other dead lived not again 
in a similar way at death, nor before it in a saving conversion on this 
earth." 

t " And here it is well worth the observing, what another wresting of 
plain words Grotius presents us withal, about the ' awaking of the dead,' 
Dan. 12. 2. He would have the heathen Porphyry to be the best inter- 
preter of these words, who makes the rising of the dead to be nothing but 
the return of some persecuted Jews ; and yet both Grotius and Porphyry 
confess, that the * words are very wonderfully and artificially put together, 
to hint at the mystery of the resurrection ;' so wonderfully, indeed, as it is 
to be admired how they can be made to intend any thing else." — Cressen- 
efs Demonst. of the Apoc. p. 78. 



308 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

universal establishment over the earth, which is the grand 
finale of all prophecy, the '' finishing of the mystery of God ;" 
for as to any such event as the physical destruction of the 
globe which we inhabit, or the pJiT/sical passing away of the 
heavens, we are constrained to acknowledge that we have 
sought the evidence of it in vaiij throughout the oracles of 
inspiration. No language to this effect can possibly be 
more express than that which teaches the'contrary : '' Who 
laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re- 
moved for ever,'' '' One generation passeth away, and 
another generation cometh ; hut the earth ahidethfor ever.'' 
" And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the 
kingdom under the whole heaven (consequently upon the 
earth), shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most 
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." Prophecy 
contains nothing that carries us beyond this.* 

During the lapsing ages of this evangelic empire of the 
Messiah, in that period which was to intervene prior to the 
downfall of all earthly dominion, announced by the ominous 
blast of the seventh or jubilee trumpet of the Apocalypse, the 
Gospel was to continue to be preached, and parallel with its 
proclamation was this sublime process of spiritual resuscita- 
tion to be going on. The Millennial period of John, which 
is to be traced to a Jewish origin, was to constitute a signal 
department of this grand era.t Coinciding with the seventh 



* The objection to understanding 2 Pet. 3. 7-12, as announcing a lit- 
eral conflagration of the heavens and the earth, is grounded upon the inevi- 
table conflict it introduces into the Scripture statements respecting the 
grand issue of human affairs. That destruction, whatever it be, is plainly- 
anterior to the usfiering in of the New Jerusalem state, or the new heav- 
ens and earth of Isaiah, ch. 65. 17. But the conditions of that state are 
such as absolutely to forbid the idea of a previous physical catastrophe to 
the present mundane system. See this point largely considered in the 
pages of the ' Hierophant.* 

t " R. Elieser Ben .lose, the Galilean/says, that the Messianic age 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 309 

millenary, according to Jetoish reckoning, from the crea- 
tion, and thence made, for the most part, though with some 
exceptions,* the ground of the most glowing anticipations 
of terrestrial bliss, it really falls, by a better adjusted chro- 
nology, into an entirely different position in the career of 
centuries, and defines an era marked, on the one hand, by 
the prevalence of the power of the Roman beast, and the 
errors, apostacies, and persecutions of the Roman church ; 
and on the other, by the spiritual quickening and spiritual 
reigning of the martyrs and confessors of the truth, whose 
faithful testimony was illustrated by the fires kindled around 
them by papal cruelty, and towering, as beacon lights in 
those dark ages, above the stakes to which they were tied. 
This state of things the prophet beholds in entranced vision. 
He saw their ' souls' living in the midst of the slaughter of 
their bodies, for it is only by exegetical violence that their 
* beheading ' can be separated from their ' reigning.' The 
true version is ' did not ' instead of * had not :' — ^' I saw the 
souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, 
and for the word of God, and which did not worship the 
beast, neither his image, neither did receive his mark in their 
forehead or in their hands ; and they lived and reigned with 
Christ a thousand years."t That is, there was a successiim 



shall endure a thousand years, because it is written, Is. 63. 4, * The day 
of vengeance is in my heart ;' but the day of the Lord is a thousand years." 
— Jalkut Schimoni in Psalm, fol. 112. 

" It is a tradition in the house of Elias, that the just whom the holy 
blessed God shall resuscitate from the dead, shall no more return to dust, 
but shall live through the space of a thousand years, which being elapsed, 
the holy blessed God shall renew the world, and shall give to them wings, 
like the wings of eagles, and they shall fly above the waters." Sanhedrin, 
fol. 92. 1. An inkling of ethereal bodies is here to be detected. 

* See the note from the Midrash Tillin, on p. 314. 

t The Vulgate here gives the right rendering of the original — ' non 
adoraverunt,' did not worship, * non acceperunt,' did not receive. The 
pluperfect rendering was undoubtedly given in compliance with the de- 

14* 



3^10 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

of such faithful witnesses living, dying, rising, reigning, 
throughout that whole period. Bei»g partakers of that 



mands of a previous theory, which could not be so well subserved by a 
correct version. 

We append, in this connexion, the following valuable remarks from 
Gipps's " First Resurrection," p. 133 : " I would begin, therefore, by sug- 
gesting an inquiry as to whether the fourth verse is correctly translated. 
The reader will observe, that our translation of the verbs sat, was given, 
lived, reigned, are in one tense ; but the verbs had worshipped, and had 
received, are in another. In the Greek, however, they are all in the 
same tense, the aorist : UdQicTav, sat ; eSoOr], was given ; TrpoaeKvvrjaav, wor- 
shipped ; e'XaPov, received ; e^rjaav, lived ; e^aaiXevaav, reigned. According 
to our translation, the time of the ' worshipping the beast' and ' receiving 
his mark,' &c., is different from that of the ' sitting on the throne,' the 
' living and reigning.' The impression which it conveys is, that * the 
worshipping the beast,' &c., took place in some period antecedent to that 
during which the persons reign with Christ. I cannot, however, perceive 
that the original implies this. It appears to me, that as these verbs are 
all in the same tense in the original, so they must all refer to the same 
time ; and that, whatever be the time of ' not worshipping the beast, nor 
receiving his mark,' the same is the time of the sitting on thrones, living 
and reigning. I conceive, therefore, that the time during which the per- 
sons described refuse to worship the beast and his image, is that during 
which they are sitting upon the thrones, living and reigning with Christ. 
It# upon this point that my present view of the passage depends. If there 
are instances in the New Testament, in which verbs occurring in one 
verse, and in the same tense, signify entirely different times — some refer- 
ring to time past, in this life ; and others to time future, in the life to 
come — such instances would show that the verbs in this verse also may 
refer to different times, although they are in the same tense. But as I 
am not aware of any such instances, my present impression is, that, ac- 
cording to correct construction, each verb being in the same tense must 
refer to the same time. 

*' Having made these observations, I would suggest whether ver. 4 
would not be more correctly translated thus : ' And I saw thrones, and 
they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them ; and I saw the 
souls of those who were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the 
word of God, and such as (or whosoever) worshipped not the beast, neither 
his image, and received not his mark upon their forehead and their hand, 
and lived (or they lived) and reigned with Christ the thousand years.* 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 311 

divine principle of eternal life which our Saviour himself 
declares exempts a man from the triumph of death, they are, 
of course, the subjects of a resurrection perpetually devel- 
oping itself; and how could such a favored destiny be any 
more pertinently expressed than by the very language which 
John has applied to it 1 — ** I saw the souls {ipv/ag) of them 
which were beheaded," &c.* This is language appropriate 
to a mental and not an ocular perception, the objects of which 



Let the reader therefore bear in mind, that I assume, as the whole basis of 
my present view, that the verbs sitting, giving, worshipping, receiving, 
living, reigning, being all in the same tense, refer all to the same time ; 
and, with this impression, I venture to suggest the following ; which, it 
appears to me, may be the general outline of this prophecy. 

" First, That a body of persons would arise in the kingdom of the beast, 
who would, in a figurative sense, sit upon thrones, have judgment given 
to them, and live and reign with Christ ; and that the subjects of this 
the first resurrection would be characterized by refusing to ivorship the 
beast and his image, and would be exposed to persecution, and to he slain 
for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God : and that a succession of 
persons so characterized would continue to arise in the kingdom of the 
beast, and to live and reign with Christ as kings and priests during the 
thousand years. 

" Secondly, When this period of a thousand years is ended, and at the 
commencement of the succeeding period described in ver. 7-10, a secoftd 
resurrection of a similar kind will take place, when the rest of the dead 
will live, as foretold in ver. 5 ; and during this period, the remainder of 
the Lord's kings and priests will arise, and live and reign w^ith Christ. 
This second resurrection, however, will perhaps not be chiefly in the king- 
dom of the beast, but in other parts ; nor will it be a time of martyrdom ; 
and after this second resurrection, and during the living and reigning of 
its subjects, the events foretold in ver. 7-10 will take place. 

" Thirdly, After the conclusion of this second period Christ will come, 
and the judgment of all the dead will take place, as described in vers. 
11-15." 

* " John does not say that he saw that the men who were beheaded 
lived again on the earth. He asserts merely, that he sav/ the souls of 
them that were beheaded, not living cfg-am, but living; that is, filled with 
unceasing joy, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live to God." — Witsii Ex' 
ere. Sac. p. 513. 



312 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



were not risen bodies, but risen souls, of which we have 
already seen that ipv;{al is intrinsically the legitimate ex- 
pression. They are the ' many ' of Daniel, who have awak- 
ened from spiritual sleep, leaving the ' rest of the dead ' 
still buried in the slumbers of that moral lethargy by which 
they were overwhelmed, and thus distinguished from the 
class of the living and reigning. Their state is a true re- 
surrection state, called ' the first resurrection/ for reasons 
which will soon be assigned. The ' rest of the dead,' or as 
Parseus with equal justice renders it, ' the rest, even the dead,' 
neither awake nor live during the thousand years, nor at any 
other time.* This, as we have seen from Daniel, is the very 



* " By ' the rest of the dead' are understood all others (the martyrs 
and confessors excepted) who embraced not the testimony of Jesus in all 
this time, but were either professed enemies of Christ, as Jews and Pagans 
without the church, or false Christians or anti-Christians in the Church. 
These, he saith, are dead, not by a corporal, but a spiritual death in sin, 
of which death the apostle speaketh, ' When ye were dead in sins j' and 
' She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth/ So Christ, ^ Let the 
dead hury the dead' * The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of man. 
For he (John) speaketh of the state of the ungodly living on the earthy 
whom he opposeth to the martyrs, not as then living with Christ in heaven> 
but as formerly embracing and professing the witness of Jesus on earth. 
Therefore, in the words, ' The rest of the dead,' the distinction is not be- 
tween the dead, but after the Greek phrase the genitive is put for the nom- 
inative, ' the rest of the dead' for ' the rest even the dead,' So in ch. 9. 20, 
* the rest of the men/ that is, * other men.' At least, it is a distinction of 
such as of old were living on earth, but dead spiritually ; for of old the 
martyrs also, before they repented and embraced the testimony of Jesus, 
were dead spiritually as the rest ; but because they lived again spiritually 
on earth, therefore after death they lived and reigned gloriously with 
Christ in heaven. ' But the rest lived not again,' to wit, from the death 
of sin through faith and repentance, but despising the testimony of Jesus, 
remained in paganism, or repented not of their idolatry, hypocrisy, and 
other sins in anti-Christianism ; as in ch. 9. 20, ' The rest of the men» 
which were not killed by these plagues, repented not of the works of their 
hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold,' &c., which 
place doth excellently interpret this." — Par (bus on the Apoc. ch. 20. 5. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 313 

point of distinction between the two classes, that the one 
awakes and lives, and the other does not. This is the view 
sustained by the whole tenor of the Old Testament repre- 
sentations, viz., that the wicked never awake from the deep 
death in which they are sunk. Though they continue to 
exist, yet having no participation in that principle of divine 
life of which Christ is the sempiternal source and the only 
bestower, their existence, though perpetual, is penal, and no 
deliverance ever reaches them from the fearful bondage of 
their doom.* During the lapse of the centuries in ques- 

* Even at the risk of an apparent supererogation of proof we ad- 
duce the following instances of Rabbinical diction on this head, the weight 
of which, in the present connexion, depends upon its being founded upon, 
and warranted by, the current phraseology of the Old Testament, although 
it is very possible they may have unduly strained the import of particular 
passages cited in its support. 

In the Midrash Coheleth, fol. 82. 2, on Eccles. 9. 5, " The living 
know that they must die," it is said, " By this is to be understood those 
who in death are said to be living." So also of the clause, " The dead 
know not any thing ;" " by this is understood the wicked, who even in life 
are said to be dead." 

In the Idra Suta, § 22, 23, on Ps. 115. 17, " The dead praise not the 
Lord," R. Simeon says, " This is certainly true of those who are called 
dead ; for the holy blessed God is called living, and dwells among those 
who are called living, and not among those who are called dead.'' 

In the Tanchuma, fol. 36. 3, it is said, " Our dead (i. e. the Israel- 
ites) are not dead, as says the Psalmist,' Ps. 149. 5, ' Let the saints be 
joyful in glory.' " 

Jalkut Reuben, fol. 126. 1, " The righteous in their death are called 
living, because the righteous are not polluted ; and this is mystically point- 
ed out by that, that ' the holy flesh is never corrupted.' " 

Jalkut Simeon, 2. fol. 109. 3, " There is no difference between the 
living and dead righteous ; they differ only in name." 

Sohar, fol. 11. 4," The righteous are worthy to be called living in 
the world to come." 

Synopsis Sohar, p. 138, n. 7, " Jacob our father and Moses our 
teacher, upon whom be peace, are no< dead; and so of all who are in per- 
fection, for upon this true hfe depends. And although it is written of them 
that they are dead, yet this is to be understood only in respect to us, and 
not in respect to them." 



314 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

tion, the great mass of the Roman Christendom was in the 
condition here portrayed. They constituted that * world ' 
which wondered after the beast — which gave themselves up 
with admiring adherence and blind obsequiousness to his 
disastrous dominion. This reign of the beast was the reign 
of apostacy, and apostacy is death.* This period, we repeat, 
was a period, in the main, of the empire of spiritual death ; 
but its desolation was relieved by a continued succession 
of faithful witnesses of the truth, who arose, from time to 
time, from out of the midst of the immense surrounding 
moral cemetery — the vast Necropolis of the Papacy — and 
quickened by the Spirit of God into true resurrection-life 
lived and reigned with Christ, and in reigning, judged. It 
is quite immaterial whether we regard them as living during 
this time in the flesh on earth, or as clothed with spiritual 
bodies, for the life is in either case the same, their resurrec- 
tion being merely the complement of their regeneration — a 
resurrection to which the previous death of the body is little 
more than laying aside at night the garments which are 
worn during the day. These were the persons whom the 
prophet saw in ecstatic vision, and we see not how he could 
well have described them otherwise. 

But why is this called the first resurrection 1 The 
true answer to this question is suggested, we think, by a 
reference to the grounds on which it is called a resurrec- 
tion at all, and to its real chronological relations. Assuming 
in the outset the soundness of our previous exposition of the 
nature of that life which they are said to have lived — a life 
which involves no implication whatever of the revival of 
their dead hodies — we are to bear in mind that the locale 
of the present scenery, as indeed is that of the whole book, 
is mainly the Roman empire. It is within the limits of this 

* In the Jewish Midrash Tillin, fol. 42. 1, it is said, that " upon the 
coming of the Messiah the world shall be desolated for a thousand years." 
This accords with the view we are now advocating, that this Millennial 
period is not, intrinsically, a prosperous era, but the reverse. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 315 

empire, under its nominally Christian phasis, and during the 
prevalence of the power of the Beast and of his worship, 
that this grand moral resurrection takes place. It was ful- 
filled in the successive rising up of faithful witnesses of 
Jesus and sturdy resisters of the Papacy during the lapse of 
those ages of darkness and decline which throw their 
gloomy shadows upon the pages of ecclesiastical history. 
As such a resurrection was predicted, so it occurred. But 
this resurrection, which concerned the then existing territory 
of the Christian church, does not exhaust the full burden of 
the prophetic word. At a period subsequent to the close of 
the thousand years, and synchronizing in the main with the 
sounding of the seventh Trumpet, the Scriptures have else- 
where announced an extensive conversion of the Jews, and 
that too under the very figure of a resurrection of the most 
stupendous kind. The detailed account of this is to be found 
in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, of which we have elsewhere 
attempted a full exposition. But synchronical with this is 
to occur also, as the Scriptures intimate, a great ingather- 
ing of the Gentiles, which will of course, like that of the 
Jews, be a virtual vivification of the spiritually dead. ** If 
the fall of them be the riches of the world, how much their 
fulness ?" '' Blindness in part has happened unto Israel, till 
the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." This denotes a 
cotemporary conversion on a large scale of Jews and Gen- 
tiles ; and this we conceive is to constitute the second resur- 
rection^ the annunciation of which is not given in this 
connexion, but is to be sought in other parts of the Scrip- 
ture. It is not the resurrection of * the rest of the dead * 
here mentioned, which has more especial reference to Chris- 
tendom, and who are never to rise, but to entirely a different 
class of subjects. 

But did the prophet see the living, reigning, and judging 
saints alone? Let us listen to his own report embodied in 
the closing paragraph. 



316 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



V. 11-15. 



ENG, VERS. 



Kai Eidov '&q6vov fiayav 
T^avaov, yioi rov aad^rjiaevov in 
avtov^ ov ano TtQogtonov tcpv- 
ysv Tj yrj }iai 6 ovQavog, Tial 
TOTiog ov)[ svQsd^f] avToTg. 

Kai eldov rovg rSKQOvg, 
rovg iieyakovg yioi rovg fAi- 
HQovg, iazojrag lvc6niov rov 
S^QOvov, :ial ^i^Xia riroi'^d^ri- 
aav ^ai alio ^i^liov rivoi- 
X&ri, iart iijg ^coTJg' Tioi 
iyiQi&riaav ol vmQol sk rojv 
yeyqafifiti^cov iv roig ^t^lioig 
Tiara ra agya avToov. 

Kai tdco'Asv fj 'ddlaaaa Tovg 
rexQOvg rovg iv avrrj, Tial 6 
S^dvarog xal 6 ddrig 8do3>iav 
rovg vEKQovg rovg ev avroig * 
:iai ixQid7]aav enaGrog xara 
ra sQya avroov, 

Kai 6 '&drarog xal 6 aSrjg 
e^Xrjd'jjaav Eig rrjv Xifivriv rov 
TZVQog ' ovrog 6 d^dvarog 6 
devrsQog iariv, 

Kai si rig ovy^ svqe'&t] iv rri 
^i^Xq) rjjg l^CfOrjg yEyQaii^xivog, 
i^Xri&ri 8ig rrjv XifAvrjv rov 

TTVQOg. 



And I saw a great white 
throne, and him that sat on it, 
from whose face the earth and 
the heaven fled away: and 
there was found no place for 
them. 

And I saw the dead, small 
and great, stand before God ; 
and the books were opened: 
and another book was opened, 
which is the book of life : and 
the dead were judged out of 
those things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to 
their works. 



And the sea gave up the 
dead which were in it; and 
death and hell delivered up the 
dead which were in them : and 
they were judged every man 
according to their works. 

And death and hell were 
cast into the lake of fire. This 
is the second death. 



And whosoever was not 
found written in the book of 
life was cast into the lake of 
fire. 



This is the opening of a scene which, though essentially 
related to the foregoing, is to be dated subsequent to the 
close of the thousand years, and intimately connected with 
the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, at the period of which 
it is said, ch. 11. 18, '' And the time of the dead is come, 
that they should he judged^ and that thou shouldest give re- 
ward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and 
them that fear thy name, small and great/* These dead^ in 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 317 

the nature of the case, are the spiritually dead^ constituting 
the class opposed to the spiritually living. Of the former 
nothing had been said in connexion with the lapse of the 
thousand years, except simply that they did not, like the 
saints, live during that period. Still it was fitting that they 
should be brought to view in some part of the scenic pano- 
rama. Here then the curtain is lifted, and we are permitted 
to look in upon them. But the visioning is all spiritual ; and 
that no mention is made of a resurrection, or of bodies, arises 
from the fact so often adverted to, that a resurrection is not 
predicated of the iviched, i. e. the spiritually dead. They 
abide in death as their element; and in this condition they 
are exhibited to our contemplation. As dead they lived, 
as dead they died, as dead they are judged.* The error, we 
conceive, is inimitably great to suppose the judgment here 
described a visible judgment in the natural sphere, the sub- 
jects of which are men restored to life and reinvested ivith 
bodies. There is not, that we can perceive, the remotest al- 
lusion to bodies in the present context. The true doctrine 
of the resurrection affords the true key to the symbolic prob- 
lems before us. As that doctrine in etfect brings the spiritual 
world into the closest proximity to the present, it is but a 
slight transition to pass ideally from the one into the other, 
and that transition we are here doubtless required to make. 
The spiritually dead must be sought in the region where 
they abide after death. The transaction here set forth is 
unquestionably to be conceived as occurring within the veil. 
As the * dead ' had nothing to do with the living transac- 

* We may here remark, that what we deem the false construction 
usually put upon the passage respecting the living of the rest of the dead, 
has undoubtedly arisen from a false reading of the original. In the estab- 
lished text of the earlier editions of the Greek Testament the lection is 
ovK dve^rjaav, which properly implies lived not again, and after this our 
translation was made. But all the modern editions unanimously reject 
this reading and adopt ovk e^fiaav, lived not. This gives a new complexion 
to the passage, and all but enforces our construction. 



318 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

tions of the thousand years, and as yet no ground was to be 
given for the inference, that they had been overlooked of the 
divine justice, the spirit of prophecy leads the spirit of the 
prophet within the precincts of that region where alone 
their existence or their destiny was to be revealed. 

Another remark of some moment we would make in 
this connexion. As John acts throughout in a representa- 
tive character, or in other words as a personal embodiment 
of the church through successive ages, so it is doubtless 
implied, that at the period to which the prophecy ,more 
particularly refers, there will be, if we may so say, an in- 
creased power and intensity of spiritual vision, a piercing of 
the mental eye through and beyond all outward envelopes, 
so that the substantial scenes of the interior world shall be 
amazingly disclosed to the realizing perception of the spirit. 
It is in this, as one sense, that we understand the passing or 
fleeing away of heaven and earth from the face of him that 
sitteth upon the throne. We believe indeed that this is pre- 
cisely the period announced by Isaiah as that when the new 
heavens and the new earth are to be ushered in ; but as the 
evidence is to our minds utterly defective that any physical 
event is then to happen which can answer to the sublime 
burden of this language, we are constrained to seek its solu- 
tion, in part, in the occurrence of some new subjective condi- 
tion of believers, which enables them with comparative ease 
to pass from the sphere of the natural into that of the spir- 
itual, and contemplate with unclouded survey the grand re- 
alities of that world. This will be a virtual abolishing the 
old heavens and the old earth, and the opening of a new 
world to the wondering gaze of the illuminated spirit. The 
material universe is, if we may so say, seen through, and 
offers no longer an insuperable impediment to a profound 
insiorht into the inner soul or sphere of which it is an enve- 
lope. We know the effect, even in common religious expe- 
rience, of the couching of that moral cataract which had 
before obscured the vision of the inward eye ; how at once 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 319 

the significant motto, Vetera prcBterierunt, old things are 
passed away, is written on the whole face of creation, and 
the man seems to be born into two worlds, both new, at the 
same time. Thus in the present case the implication is in 
our view obvious, that inasmuch as this judgment is really 
enacted in the spiritual world, and not on the theatre of the 
earth, so about the time of its incipient occurrence, there 
will be a growing recognition of this fact, and a virtual 
approximation of the world of faith to the world of sense. 

We doubt not that there will be stupendous moral and 
political changes in the state of the world at this period, 
which will substantiate in great measure the superb shadows 
of the prophet, but we nevertheless look for more than this. 
We anticipate a measure o^ spiritualintuition which has never 
before been accorded to the world — an aptitude to penetrate 
beyond the grossness of the letter — the sensuousness of the 
symbol — to the inner core of the mystery and the sense. The 
precise nature of that process which is thus to result in open- 
inor heaven and hell to the spiritual perception of living men, 
and in making them more distinctly cognizant of their stu- 
pendous realities, we may not be able at present to define ; 
but that such idHI be the result we have the fullest convic- 
tion, nor do we believe that any interpretation of the clos- 
ing chapters of the Apocalypse will ever fully solve their 
eniornas but one that is founded on the admission of a new 
subjective state of the Christian man in reference to them. 
While, on the one hand, the characteristics of the New Je- 
rusalem economy are such as to imply the continuance of 
the present mundane system as its grand locale, it is on the 
other presented under such aspects as seem to necessitate 
the inference, that some change is absolutely requisite in 
order to qualify men in the flesh for entering into a full re- 
alization and participation of its blessings. We look for the 
evolutions of the divine counsels to open a new chapter of 
marvels upon the world in connexion with the fulfilments of 
the closing oracles of John. '* The third period of the 



320 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

church" says Daubuz, '^ is an age of wonders in a transcend- 
ent degree." 

But we revert again to the ^judgment of the dead.' 
The great purpose of the Spirit is to intimate that a fitting 
award was to be meted out to the immense multitudes of 
those who were written as non-living during the lapse of the 
thousand years. Though dead in the sight of God as to any 
acting of true spiritual life, yet they had been sufficiently 
alive to inflict untold sufferings upon the living witnesses of 
the truth, and to bring them, from age to age, to the bloody 
block. It was proper, therefore, that they should be judged 
— men of all grades and orders — the * great' and the * small,' 
i. e., the eminent and the mean. For this purpose ' the 
books are opened,' evidently a symbolical expression, de- 
noting simply the fact, that their 'works' are all registered 
in the records of the divine remembrance as well as their 
own, as the unquestionable ground of the sentence which is 
to be pronounced. As the ' books' then are a mere figure, 
a part of the costume of the scene, we infer the same as to 
the ' throne,' and its occupancy by a visible judge. The 
whole is emblematic, and not real. God does not sit upon a 
throne, nor does he, like earthly monarchs, keep written 
archives of the affairs of his kingdom. The imagery por- 
trayed is in accordance with our common notions of judicial 
proceedings, and is thus best calculated to produce the prac- 
tical effect designed. To the great mass of men of all ages 
such a representation will appeal with more power than any 
other, while at the same time, as the moral reason is devel- 
oped and educated, the scenery will gradually resolve itself 
into an inward process, the necessary result of character, 
and fixing one's spiritual and eternal state by an established 
law. If men were universally elevated in this life above 
the sphere of the sensuous, this more abstract view of the 
subject would be all that would be requisite to exercise the 
most ample control over their practical conduct ; for to the 
reflecting mind there can be no higher sanction to a moral 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 321 

law than that in its own nature, and by its inevitable conse- 
quences, it works out weal or woe to its subject, according 
as he obeys or violates it. But the mass of men are not re- 
flecting; they are habitually incompetent to appreciate the 
force of purely moral considerations, and therefore th^ wis- 
dom and benignity of Jehovah have accommodated their 
revelations of human destiny to the intellectual infirmities 
of the race. They are communicated through a medium 
that shall address itself to their imaginations. They are set 
forth under the guise of symbols and images calculated to 
work on their hopes and fears, and to move the reason 
through the machinery of the passions. Thus in regard to 
the sublime pictured scenery we are now contemplating. 
The truth, divested of all drapery, undoubtedly is, that each 
individual of this countless multitude was actually judged, 
as every man necessarily is, the moment he became a den- 
izen of the world unseen. His character decided his destiny. 
But in accordance with the general analogy of revelation, 
the judgment is here represented as concentrated to a point, 
to a single act, and its candidates are exhibited as arraigned, 
as having their indictment read out to them, and then sub- 
jected to a formal sentence followed by an actual execution. 
This is the lot of the condemned ; and such is the import of 
the symbols, that whatever may be the true nature of their 
doom, no possible solution can avoid the inference that it is 
tremendously fearful, and no man can fail to impose upon 
himself, to his infinite detriment, who adopts any construc- 
tion of the figured scenery which goes in any way to relax 
the awful tone of sanction that runs through the whole. 
Still we are not to be deterred by any contingency of this 
sort from the humble and reverent attempt to resolve shad- 
ows into substance. 

^' And another book was opened, which is the book of 
life." The ' book of life' is the hook of the living. The 
phraseology is founded upon repeated allusions in the Old 
Testament, many of which are transferred to the New. 



322 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Compare Ex. 32. 33. Ps. 69. 28, (where the Targum has 
' book of the record of the living/) Is. 4. 3. Ezek. 13. 9. 
Dan. 12. 1. Phil. 4. 3. Rev. 3. 5.— 13. 8.— 17. 8. The 
names enrolled in that book, are the names of the livings in 
contradistinction from the dead, who are here represented 
as h^mg judged.^ The judgment does not clearly appear 
to pass upon the living. The register in which they are 
written is merely opened that they may be designated^ in 
order to their taking their seats as co-assessors with Christ, 
and share with him in the act of adjudication. ^' Know ye 
not that the saints shall judge the world V By this opening 
of the 'book of life' the tribunal is fully constituted, and 
the award is then given. *' The dead were judged out of 
those things that were written in the books, according to 
their works." 

** And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death 
and Hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them ; 
and they were judged every man according to their works.'' 
This is of course to be understood as the statement of some- 
thing which occurs 'prior to the act of adjudication just men- 



* " A number of hooks are opened, and this is contrasted with the 
opening of a single hook ; and while it is stated that the dead are judged, 
every man out of these hooks^ according to his works, the opening of the 
other hook is for another purpose altogether. It is not used to call up to 
judgment any individual whose name is written therein ; but it is em- 
ployed simply as a testimony to establish the perfect justice of the sen- 
tence on the others, to manifest that not one of those who will then be judged 
had his name written in the book of life. As the solemn tribunal is sit- 
ting for the judging of" the rest of the dead," we may suppose there will 
be a reference to this book ; and as each individual is accused, we may 
imagine the question to be asked, " Is his name in the book of life ?" " Is 
there any escape for him ?" " No ; it is not found there," will be the 
answer. " Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast 
into the lake of fire." This is all which can be grounded upon the men- 
tion of this book of life in this awful passage of God's word. — Dallas's Ser- 
mon on the Judgment of the Living, in " Lectures delivered hy Twelve 
Clergymen o^ the Church of England. London, 1844. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 323 

tioned above. Keeping steadily in mind the main idea above 
insisted on, that the ^ dead \in this connexion are the spirit- 
ually dead — the dead equally before and after their physical 
decease — we shall have no difficulty in grasping the drift of 
this part of the oracle. It simply affirms the universality of the 
judgment in relation to its true subjects. No matter by what 
form of dissolution they passed out of the present life.* 
Whether they met their fate by being ingulfed in the wa- 
ters of the sea, or sunk under the stroke of pestilence or any 
other species of wasting disease — the true prophetical sense 
of death z=z mortality — it is a matter of no account in bar 
of the certainty of their being summoned to judgment. 
** Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take 
them ; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring 
them down ; and though they hide themselves in the top of 
Carmel, I will search and take them out thence ; and though 
they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence 
will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them." There 
shall be no exemption for a single soul. Judgment and 
doom are inevitable, and no dark recess of ocean, earth, or 
heaven, shall retain its refugees, when the loud-sounding 



* In chap. 21. 1, the prophet says, " And I saw a new heaven and a 
new earth ; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; 
ajid there was no more sea." This is adduced with considerable plausibili- 
ty as an objection to the common theory of the occurrence of the 'judgment 
of the dead' at what is termed ' the end of the world/ for during the previ- 
ous New Jerusalem state it would seem not to exist. Our own impres- 
sion is, that under the new earthly economy the sea will no longer exist 
as a sea, i. e., as a separating barrier in the way of the intercourse of na- 
tions. Such will then be the improvements in the various arts of naviga- 
tion, thai the ocean shall be, as it were, bridged, and offer no more imped- 
iment to travelling than the land. Consequently it ceases to be, as it 
was before, a source of destruction to men ; and this passage taken 
in connexion with chap. 20. 13, and 21. 4, shows that the three grand 
forms of destruction, to wit, the Sea, Death, and Hades, are all done away 
under the new dispensation. 



324 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



summons Deliver ! shall be heard in reverberated echoes 
throughout creation's limits. 

Still we cannot be insensible to a large admixture of 
the symbolical element in the midst of this solemn scenery. 
Both Death and Hades are here personified. They are rep- 
resented as a kind o^ janitors of the dreary realms of dead 
souls, and they are here set before us as giving up those whom 
they had before held in their keeping. As ' Death' is the 
prophetical term for mortality, more especially under the 
form of sickness or pestilence, or any thing which is the cause 
of premature death, the intimation is, that all the thousands 
and millions who had been hurried in any of these modes 
out of life, are now to be recognised as being in existence, 
and candidates for their final and just award, the sentence of 
the ' second death,' the term for that punishment, whatever it 
be, which is the equitable sequence of their spiritual death. 
The import of ^ Hades' or ' Hell' is closely related to that 
of Death.' Death and Hades are frequently spoken of 
together, as being a kind of inseparable companions. Rev. 
6. 8, '' And I looked, and behold a pale hor se ; and his name 
that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with 
him." Death delivers over his victims to Hades, that is, 
mortal disease or premature death transmits its subjects into 
the invisible world, and the intrusted charge of the one 
cannot well be reclaimed without an equivalent demand 
made upon the other. As then they received their subjects 
in concert, they resign them in concert. The sheriff and 
the jailer unite in the surrender of the culprit to the sen- 
tence of the judge. 

*' And Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire." 
The profoundest depths of symbolical meaning are involved 
in these v/ords. The passage is based primarily on an al- 
lusion to Hos. 13. 14, " I will ransom them from the power 
of the grave (Gr. riJoi;, hades) ; I will redeem them from 
death: O death, I will be thy plagues, O grave {(iM, hades), 
1 will be thy destruction." We can resolve the purport of 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 325 

the words only by a searching inquiry into the time to 
which the events here described are to be assigned. And 
we observe, first, that it is certainly not the end of the 
world, as popularly understood, for the New Jerusalem 
state which is gradually to be developed on the earth, is 
yet to ensue. The precursor to this state is the sounding 
of the seventh trumpet, which we have already seen is syn- 
chronical with this judgment of the dead. And let us here 
remark, that this New Jerusalem economy, and not the 
Millennium, constitutes the grand sabbatical or septenary 
period of the world, and this is of unlimited duration, in 
accordance with what Moses says of the creation-week ; 
in which it will be noticed that, unlike the preceding days, 
the Sabbath is not defined by ' evening and morning,' thus 
conveying by implication the idea, that that day is a type 
of a sabbatism of unlimited extent. This sabbatism we re- 
cognize in the New Jerusalem state, immediately previous 
to which the heavenly bride, the Church, adorns herself for 
her husband, just as Adam received his new-created Eve on 
the close of the sixth day, as he was about entering on his 
first Sabbath. The chain of disclosures in the Apocalypse 
lands us, in this 20th chapter, at the Saturday evening of 
the world's great week, to which this 'judgment of the 
dead' is more especially to be referred, for the next chap- 
ter opens with the introduction of the new heavens and the 
new earth, and the descent of ' the holy city,' the New Jeru- 
salem, the bride, the Lamb's wife, coming to the consum- 
mation of her long-expected nuptials. 

Now, of this predicted state, just about to open with 
abounding bliss upon the earth, it is expressly said, ch. 21. 4, 
that '' there shall be no more death there, neither sorrow nor 
crying, neither shall there be any more pain ; for the former 
things are passed away." Death, therefore, in the sense 
above explained, o^ 'premature mortality, is to have no place 
in that beatific dispensation, and consequently he is here rep- 

15 



326 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

resented as being abolished on the eve of its commencement.* 
But as Death and Hades are indissolubly associated in the 



* As the position which we have assumed above is one of the utmost 
importance to our general argument, we must be permitted to introduce an 
extract from an article in the ' Hierophant ' (p. 12), on the chronological 
relations of the Millennium and the New Jerusalem, where we have dis- 
cussed the present point at great length. 

John 21. 4. Isaiah 65. 19, 20. 

And God shall wipe away all And I will rejoice in Jemsalem, 
tears from their eyes; and there andjoy in my people : and the voice 
shall be no more death, neither sor- of weeping shall be no more heard 
row, nor crying, neither shall there in her, nor the voice of crying. 
be any more pain : for the former There shall be no more thence an 
things are passed away. infant of days, nor an old man that 

hath not filled his days: for the 
child shall die an hundred years 
old : but the sinner being an hun- 
dred years old shall be accursed. 

It would doubtless appear, at the first blush, that these passages, though 
containing some expressions in common, were yet irreconcilably at vari- 
ance on the grand point of mortality, in the state which they are design- 
ed to depict to us. We see, it is said, in one the unequivocal assurance 
that ^ there shall be no more death ' there, and in the other an equally 
clear intimation that there shall be death, though its stroke may, in the 
general, be deferred to extreme old age. So far as the letter is concern- 
ed, this appears indeed a very formidable objection to the identity of the 
states described by the two writers. But we have no doubt the objection 
is entirely superable, and we proceed to show that a simple reference to 
^ the prevailing usus loquendi in regard to the word ' death ' (ddvaTos) 
will solve the enigma without the least difficulty. 

The remark is well nigh superfluous to scholars, that the prevailing 
diction of the New Testament is strikingly governed by and conformed 
to that of the Septuagint or Greek Version of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
But in no point is this fact more palpably illustrated than in the usage 
that obtains in regard to the word Qdvarog, usually translated death. 
In a multitude of instances, this word occurs as the rendering of the 
Heb. '-i^i'n deler, pestilence, or in a sense nearly tantamount to mortality 
from extraordinary causes, snch. B.S diseases and the various casualties 
that prematurely extinguish life. It is therefore in strict propriety oppos- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. SS*? 

Scripture emblems, the destruction of the one is the destruc- 
tion of the other. Both, therefore, are here represented as 



ed to longevity, and not to imjnortality . But conclusive evidence of this 
can be afforded only by an actual exhibition of the usage alluded to, 
v^^hich we present with the assurance, that quite as many cases remain 
behind uncited as are now adduced. Ex. 5. 3, ' Let us go, we pray 
thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our 
God, lest he fall upon us wi\\\ pestilence ('l^'n) or with the sword.' Gr. 
[xriTroTE avvavrficT)) rijj.Tv Odparos >/ (povog, lest death or slaughter meet 
us. Ex. 9. 3, * Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which 
is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon 
the oxen, and upon the sheep : there shall be a very grievous murrain 
(^53 '^D'n deber habed)' Gr. Odvaros fjiyag, a great death, i. e. mor- 
tality. Lev. 26. 25, I will send the pestilence (^5^) among you.' 
Gr. ddi'ttTog, the death. Deut. 28. 21, ' The Lord shall make the 
pestilence (^i^'n ) cleave unto thee.' Gr. Bavdros, the death. Ezek. 
33. 27, ' They that be in the forts and in the caves shall die of the 
pestilence ("li'n).' Gr. Qdvarov, of the death. This usage, which occurs 
also in the Chaldee and the Syriac, is obviously transferred into the New- 
Testament, and affords the true clew to the interpretation of the following 
passages. Rev. 2. 23, ' And I will kill her children with death {iv 
davdrco),' i. e. with pestilence or some kind of sudden and violent death, 
with death out of the common course of nature. Rev. 6. 8, '^ And pow- 
er was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with 
sword, and with hunger (i. e. famine), and loith death {tv davdrco), 
and with the beasts of the earth.' That the ' death ' here threatened is 
in fact a deadly pestilence will be evident by comparing the passage with 
Ezek. 14. 21, from which it is taken ; ' How much more when I send 
my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and 
the noisome beast, and the pestilence ('in'n, Gr. Odi/uTov), to cut off 
from it man and beast.' Indeed this phraseology is not unknown in our 
language, as it is common to denominate the wasting pestilence which 
ravaged Europe in the middle ages ' the Black Death.' 

With this array, then, of the usus loquendi before us, and which we 
might expect to find more characteristic of the Apocalypse than of any 
other portion of the New Testament, from its dominantly Hebraic idiom, 
can we hesitate to admit that the meaning of ddvarog, death, in the 
passages before us, is that which we have assigned to it ? ' There shall 
be no more death,' is merely affirming, that in that blessed period there 
shaii be an exemption from all those evil influences, physical and moral, 



328 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

having their power annulled by being themselves cast into 
*the lake of fire.' '^ This lake of fire," says Daubuz {in 
loc.)y ** is but a symbolical notion or representation of the 
perpetual continuance and unchangeableness of that state, 
into which those matters are reduced which are said to be 
thrown therein ; implying that they shall no more affect 
mankind, as being, as to them, utterly destroyed ; and as 
to themselves, never able for the future to be again what 
they were before that condemnation." The doom, there- 
fore, of the personified Death and Hades, is equivalent to 
their ceasing to be, or to act in their ajpjptwpriate capacity. 
They are henceforth to have no place under that new and 
celestial economy which is about to be ushered in. Yet no 
inference can be drawn from this in support of the idea that 
men shall not die during that period ; all that it implies is, 
that death shall be no longer a scourge or a curse. Its 
strength as a penalty is in that state utterly enervated and 
extinguished for ever. Neither can any argument be built 
upon this interpretation in favor of the hypothesis of the 
ultimate redemption and salvation of those who have fallen 
under the condemning sentence issuing from the ^ great 



which now go to curtail the duration of human life, and hurry thousands, 
in all generations, to a premature grave. Universal temperance in eat- 
ing and drinking, regulated passions, sobriety of aim, moderation of pur- 
suit, and vigilance of precaution, in all the businesses of life, combined 
with strong hereditary vital stamina, great salubrity of climate, and un- 
known improvements in the arts of physical well-being, will then no 
doubt secure to men a term of longevity vastly transcending the highest 
hopes which they would now dare to indulge. This view of the subject 
brings the two prophets to a perfect tally in their description of the vision- 
ed future. The 'no death' of John is entirely equivalent to the 'no 
premature death ' of Isaiah, as we have found this to be the legitimate 
sense of the terms; and it would certainly be strange, if when they agree 
so precisely in every other item, there were no mode of bringing them 
into harmony in this. The solution given we have no doubt is the true 
pne, and we commend it to the most unsparing scrutiny of the biblical 
scholar. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 329^ 

white throne.' They are left by this abolition of Death and 
Hades just where they were before, under the full force of 
that doom which is intended by * the second death.' If we 
were called upon to specify any form of alleged Christian 
doctrine for which the least amount of evidence could be 
adduced from the Scriptures, it would be that of the final 
universal salvation of the race. We say this at the same 
time that we do not scruple to adopt, in many particulars, 
as will have been seen in our preceding pages, the construc- 
tion which the abettors of that theory put upon the words 
of inspiration. But this fact brings us no nearer to the ad- 
mission of the truth of their grand tenet. For this we find 
an entire lack of positive Scriptural evidence ; and just as 
little do we find, on having recourse to rational or philoso- 
phical considerations. We are utterly at fault in seeing 
any thing in the nature of the case w^hich should be a satis- 
factory ground of the belief. As moral character must 
necessarily be the basis of destiny, we recognize no provi- 
sion made either in revelation or reason for that change, 
whether at death or after death, by which a bad man can be 
made a good man, and as such be rendered capable of hap- 
piness. *' As the tree falleth, so it shall lie." 

But to return. '^ This is the second death." It must be 
acknowledged that the relation in which these words stand 
to the context creates great difficulty in their explanation. 
The difficulty arises on the score of making a metaphorical 
death the subject or victim of a real death. Death and 
Hades in the preceding clause are personified, and as such 
are said to be destroyed, annulled, or abolished, by being 
cast into the * lake of fire,' considered as a symbol of a con- 
suming and annihilating power. This we can understand ; 
but when it is immediately added, ^ This is the se^cond 
death,' as if predicated also of Death and Hades, we are 
conscious at once of immense embarrassment in conceiving 
how that which is to be the doom of real persons can be 
predicated of symbolical persons. We might indeed admit 



330 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

a figure of speech, and suppose these terms to be rhetorically 
taken in a collective sense for the subjects of each, were it not 
that they are expressly said, in the preceding verse, to have 
previously resigned up their subjects ; and this would re- 
quire us to conceive of them as again re-collected, and, as 
we may say, re-embodied, in their representing or mystic 
personifications, and then destroyed. How then is the 
matter to be adjusted ? Daubuz supposes a comparison to 
be intended between the effects of the ' second death' upon 
men, and of the destruction in the lake of fire upon Death 
and Hades. *' As ' second death ' signifies irrecoverable 
damnation to wicked angels and men, so, to Death and 
Hades it signifies an absolute cessation of the effects which 
we see the present Death and Hades have upon men." But 
to us it rather appears that the ' second death ' is here used 
but in one sense, and it is properly predicable only of the 
condemned dead in their veritable persons, and not of the 
allegorical personages who represent them. We venture 
therefore to suggest a reading of the text, by a parenthetical 
arrangement, which to our mind relieves it of the difficulty 
in question, andsStill leaves the grand averment of the Spirit 
wholly unaffected. Parentheses we know are often to be 
admitted in the true construction of the sacred writers, 
though they are not noted in the original copies, and per- 
haps the following may be as unexceptionable as any other : 
*^ And the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and 
Death and Hell delivered up the dead which were in them : 
and they were judged every man according to their works. 
(And Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire.) This 
is the second death." According to this construction, the 
' second death ' stands in more immediate connexion with 
the sentence of the judgment, and is predicated of the 
subjects of that judgment, instead of the mystical imper- 
sonations. Death and Hades. It is indeed clear that the 
^ lake of fire ' is identical with the ' second death,' for it is 
immediately added ; ^' And whosoever was not found written 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 331 

in the book of life was cast into the lake of jire;^^ and 
so also ch. 21. 8, ^^ But the 'fearful, and unbelieving, and 
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sor- 
cerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in 
the lake of fire and brimstone ; which is the second deathJ^ 
But our grand object is to avoid the necessity of under- 
standing that the doom of the second death is affirmed of 
Death and Hades, considered as mystical and metaphor^ 
ical persons. 

Of the * lake of fire ' itself, that is, of the real and ver- 
itable nature of the punishment denoted by the symbol, we 
know not that we are competent, in the present state, to ap- 
prehend and unfold it. It is obviously the same with the 
' Gehenna of fire ' denounced by our Saviour as the doom of 
the incorrigible offender, and which is the emblem of a per- 
dition, the essential nature of which is nowhere disclosed 
in the teachings of revelation. The import of the passage 
is undoubtedly identical with that containing the Saviour's 
solemn declaration, Mark 9. 43, 44 : " It is better for thee 
to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into 
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." This again 
is to be traced back to the words of Isaiah, QQ. 22 : *^ And 
they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men 
that have transgressed against me, for their worm shall not 
die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be 
an abhorring to all flesh." This is chronologically related 
to the introduction of that state of things when the Jews 
are brought in, and the nations or Gentiles go up ^ from one 
new moon to another ' to worship at Jerusalem in the period 
of the new heaven and new earth, which is but another 
name for the New Jerusalem economy of the Apocalypse, 
the commencement of which is here related. This estab- 
lishes the identity of the doom announced by the two writ- 
ers. But the term for abhorring (']iJJ<^'!!is th e same, with 
a slight difference, of pointing, with that used by Daniel 



332 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

12. 3, for everlasting ' contempt ;' and this brings his lan- 
guage into distinct reference to precisely the same subjects, 
viz., the wicked who never awake to true life, although as 
the Chaldee Targum here affirms, ' their souls shall not 
die.' Cocceius observes that '* by carcasses in this place 
are to be understood men abiding in spiritual death.'' To 
* look upon' such carcasses is, according to Vitringa, to con- 
template in them an impressive and awful demonstration of 
the divine justice in the punishment to which they are con- 
demned. The consideration of the character and conduct 
which have been the procuring cause of their fearful lot will 
inspire the beholders with unutterable loathing and contempt, 
excited by the moral stench of putrefying souls. Shut out 
from all participation in the blessedness and glory of the 
' holy city,' devoured by the gnawing worm of conscience, 
exposed to the holy scorn of saints and angels, they are 
condemned to pine away in a living death y the horrors of 
which can only be depicted by the revolting spectacles of 
the ^ vale of Hinnom ' with its decaying carcasses and gloat- 
ing worms. Fearful issue of apostatizing rebellion against 
Z ion's King ! 

The point of prime moment, perhaps, in the present train 
of investigation, is that which relates to the time of this ^ judg- 
ment of the dead.' To our own view the evidence is deci- 
sive that it cannot be at the ' end of the world,' as that 
phrase is generally understood. If so, why is it not found 
at the end of the book, and set forth as the grand finale of 
the course of events which lead to it? Is there any thing 
subsequent to the general judgment, as usually apprehended, 
except the eternal states of heaven and hell, a particular 
account of which does not enter into the revelations of this 
book ? for the New Jerusalem state which ensues is obvi- 
ously a state developed on the earth, among men in the 
flesh. This is evident from Its being said that the leaves of 
the Tree of Life are for the healing of the Gentiles, and the 
kings of the earth are to bring their glory or riches into the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 833 

holy city. This is palpably the same state with that describ- 
ed in the closing chapters of Isaiah and Ezekiel, as any one 
may be convinced who will institute a comparison between 
them. But Isaiah and Ezekiel confessedly portray what is in 
popular parlance understood by the ^ latter day glory,' the 
bright and prosperous era of Zion's welfare on the terra- 
queous globe which we inhabit. How then can the descrip- 
tion of a judgment which manifestly occurs prior to this 
economy be understood of one that is to take place after it ? 
On what principle can the collocation, on that view, be ac- 
counted for ? We know that it may be said that our con- 
struction utterly disturbs and deranges the entire system of 
prophetic Eschatology, and throws us out at sea without rud- 
der or compass. But is it not true? Is there any possibility 
of avoiding the conclusion ? If there be, are we not at lib- 
erty to demand that it be pointed out? The conclusion 
certainly rests upon grounds that are very far from being 
intuitively fallacious or vain. We have fully and fairly pre- 
sented them, and we have a sustaining consciousness that 
the greatest injustice would be done to our argument by 
treating it as a mere baseless vagary, the oifspring of a way- 
ward love of new, or strange, or astounding theories. On this 
head we can safely and securely adopt the language of an 
old commentator : " This I hold, not as if I desired to be 
the first broacher of new-found and strange opinions to the 
world, or as if I took pleasure to go against the consent of 
all writers ; yea, God is my witness, how greatly I do detest 
and abhor that itching desire of hunting after and minting 
new and monstrous errors, by reason of a profane loathing 
of anciently received truth." (Brightman on the Apoc, p. 
270.) While therefore we plead not guilty to the charge of 
a morbid cacoethes innovandi, we still feel so deeply the con- 
straint of loyalty to our inmost convictions of truth, that we 
cannot withhold our efforts from the attempt to settle, upon 
a solid basis, the genuine purport of revelation in a most 

15* 



334 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

momentous department of its teachings ; and we again reit- 
erate our demand, that, if the conclusion we have stated 
above be unsound, the fallacy of it be exposed, and the 
true doctrine, on true grounds, be affirmed. 

And let us here remark, that the only possible basis on 
which a refutation of our position can be made to stand, is 
the denial of the identity of the state described in the clos- 
ing chapters of Isaiah and John ; and if this identity of 
state is denied, then the identity of language employed in 
describing each must be accounted for, and the principle 
clearly laid down which requires us to admit this diversity of 
application. The Millennium of John precedes in the order 
of the visions, and doubtless in the order of events, the New 
Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem supervenes immediately 
or speedily upon the overthrow of the mystical Babylon, 
another term for the False Prophet, whose destruction syn- 
chronizes with that of the Beast, the symbolic designation 
of the fourth or Roman empire. The passing away of the 
Roman empire, in its decem-regal form, is the result of the 
sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the seventh trumpet an- 
nounces the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdoms 
of our Lord and his Christ ; and this, according to Daniel, is 
the kingdom of the saints which endures for ever and ever, and 
consequently this must be the same as the New Jerusalem, 
unless there are to be two kingdoms both universal, or two 
eternities in succession. Now to what coming state of 
Christ's kingdom do Isaiah's glowing descriptions apply 
but to that set forth in Daniel, which is the same with the 
New Jerusalem of John ? We confess to the intensest 
anxiety to know by what process of interpretation this re- 
sult is to be set aside. If it stands, then must stand our 
collocation of the ' judgment of the dead,' for this takes place 
at the time of the passing away of the old heavens and the 
old earth, and it is the introduction of the new heavens and 
the new earth, which constitutes the New Jerusalem ; and 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 3S5 

the announcement of this is the closing scene of revelation. 
We have no account of a judgment or any thing else subse- 
quent to it. 

We may now perhaps deem ourselves somewhat pre- 
pared to reply to the objection, that the view above advo- 
cated deprives us of any clear and unequivocal assurance of 
any such event as a general judgment. We have seen that 
whatever difficulty may arise on this score, as it is a diffi- 
culty growing directly out of the fair exhibition of the 
Scripture statements on the subject, it is one with which we 
have no more concern than our readers. The disclosures 
of the Bible are the common pecidinm of all Christians, and 
the burden of its problems presses equally upon all. No 
man can be held responsible for difficulties that are created 
by the simple exliihitwn of what every body admits to be the 
veritable contents of the inspired word. The case would 
be different if they arose from the exigencies of what could 
be justly deemed ^x\y peculiar scheme or theory /uiYoXwmg 
points not generally admitted. But this we do not concede 
in the present instance to be the fact. We maintain, on the 
contrary, that the difficulty in regard to a general judgment 
at what is termed the end of the world, is an irresistible 
sequence from the common construction which is put upon 
the Scriptural records. Does not the solution, then, equally 
concern others with ourselves ? And what is the solution I 
No one will hesitate to admit that in this, as in every 
other sphere of Scriptural hermeneutics, the certain must be 
made the criterion of the uncertain. The grand point is to 
ascertain what is certain, and what is not. As far as con- 
cerns the general scope of our discussion hitherto, if we 
have not overrated the force of our reasonings, we have 
afforded such evidence in regard to the resurrection, that 
while the fact of the doctrine is impregnably sustained, the 
form of the doctrine must have undergone an important 
change in the mind's estimate, by reason of the tests to 
which it has been submitted Now if we may suppose that 



386 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the rational conviction reposes in the soundness of the 
plain conclusion as to the essential nature of the resurrec- 
tion, and consequently as to its being a process progressively 
evolved, one finds himself obliged to account to his own 
reason for the fact, that a usage of speech obtains in the 
Scriptures in regard to it, which is calculated to convey an 
impression directly the reverse of that which he believes to 
be the true one. As the Scriptural mode of expression, 
literally taken, seems to imply that the resurrection is a 
simultaneous event, to occur at some definite future period, 
he cannot well rest contented till he ascertains the origin of 
this form of speech, and settles the principle on which it is 
founded. His failure to do this, however, to his entire 
satisfaction, will not vacate the strength of his former assur- 
ance of having become master of the truth of the doc- 
trine. Still he is prompted studiously to inquire. The 
result of his inquiries, if it agrees with ours, will be, that 
our Saviour and his apostles merely adopted ihe style of 
diction which had been immemorially prevalent among the 
Jews on this subject, and which is no doubt built upon the 
current phraseology of the Old Testament. According to 
that, a resurrection ^«r eminence was to be one of the grand 
distinguishing features of the Messianic kingdom, the gene- 
ral designation of which was the ^Sln tjpls^, or world to come, 
the great and glorious dispensation to be ushered in by the 
re-living Messiah, and forming the grand burden of all the 
prophets.* This distinguished period, of which the chrono- 
logical characters were not very distinctly marked, was often 



* " The Jews had a fancy, that the kingdom of the Messias would be- 
gin with the resurrection of the dead, as we have noted before ; vainly 
indeed as to their sense of it ; but not without some truth as to the thing 
itself; for from the resurrection of Christ the glorious epoch of the king- 
dom of God took its beginning, as we said before, which Christ himself 
also signified in these words. Matt. 26. 29." — Lightfoot, Hot, Heb. and 
Tal, on Matt, 27. 52. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 337 

termed in a very general way ' the last day' — ' the last days' — 
* the great day' — ' that day,' &c. And as all time, in its longest 
duration, is but a handbreath in the Divine estimation, so 
the prophets vi^ere often led to speak of events occurring 
in any part of that period, as happening at ^ the last day.' 
Here then we have the key to those expressions of our 
Lord in the Gospels, in which he speaks of raising the 
righteous ' at the last day.' He does not deem it expedient 
to depart from the established formulas of speech with which 
the Jews were familiar. Time and the course of events 
would develope the truth, and the subsequent generations 
of the church would in this respect possess an advantage 
withheld, for wise reasons, from its primitive ages. 

The intimations respecting the judgment are, as we con- 
ceive, to be interpreted on the same principle. When Paul, 
for instance, says to Timothy, *^ I charge thee, therefore, be- 
fore God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick 
and the dead at his appearing and kingdom ;" what evidence is 
there that this language is any thing more than that of Paul's 
prevailing anticipation of the occurrence of that epiphany, 
in connexion with the judgment and the kingdom, that were 
to distinguish the dispensation which had then opened, but 
the precise periods of which had not been revealed? Our 
Lord had said. Mat. 16. 27, " The Son of man shall come 
in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then shall 
he reward every man according to his works.^^ This we 
have shown to be an announcement of his incipient coming 
at the introduction of his Gospel kingdom, when his reigning 
and judging prerogative signally commenced. Must not 
this and similar announcements have been the foundation 
upon which this entire class of the apostolical declara- 
tions rested ? — and what evidence is there that they pos- 
sessed any more than general expectations founded upon 
general predictions, the specific chronological relations of 
which had not been communicated to them ? Certainly it 
is impossible to show that the ^ times and the seasons ' which 



33S THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the Father in his sovereignty had appointed, were expressly 
made known in the apostolic age ; and there are slender 
grounds to suppose that the sacred writers have imparted 
what they had not received. 

In 1 Pet. 4. 17, we find the apostle saying, '' For the 
time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; 
and if it begin first at us, what shall the end be of them that 
obey not the gospel of God?'^ Here is the clear enunciation 
of the fact, that di process of judgment had commenced, or 
was just about to commence, at the time when this epistle 
was written. It is clear, too, that the Jews were to be, in 
the first instance, the subjects of that judgment, and this 
lays the foundation for the reference, which is made by 
almost all commentators, of these words to our Lord's pre- 
diction in the 24th of Matthew, to the coming calamities of 
Jerusalem, in which both the literal and the figurative 
* house of God ' (i. e. the temple of the Jewish people) fell 
under the desolating scourge. But we have already assumed 
to show that that was pre-eminently the commencing epoch of 
a great dispensation of judgment which was to run down 
through the centuries of the Christian kingdom ; and if this 
be so, how natural to interpret Peter's language to the same 
effect ! Can that interpretation be shown to be wrong? 

A like construction we put upon 1 Pet. 4. 4, 5, '' Where- 
in they think it strange that ye run not with them to the 
same excess of riot, speaking evil of you : who shall give 
account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead^ 
By his being * ready to judge,' &c., is implied that the great 
predicted process of judgment was just upon the eve of being 
commenced. The true nature of the distinction here hinted 
at between the * quick ' and the ' dead,' has ever been a point 
much mooted among commentators. The interpretation 
which recognizes in it the two classes of the ' godly ' and 
the * ungodly,' or the ' spiritually alive ' and the * spiritually 
dead,' strikes us as more in accordance with the general 
tone of revelation than any other, notwithstanding it seems 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 339 

to conflict with a previous remark, that the righteous are not 
said to be the subjects of a judgment. But in such cases 
the allusion is generally ioihe formal process and solemnities 
of adjudication^ in which the saints are represented rather 
as judging than as judged, although as a matter of fact it 
must of course be held, that all men without exception are 
really the subjects of retribution. This is clear from the apos- 
tle's declaration, '* For we must all appear before the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ." But that the judgment here spoken of 
is the judgment of the great Messianic day, appears clear 
from the intimation that Christ is here said to be ^ ready to 
judge the quick and dead.' This would seem fairly to imply 
the actual present setting up of the tribunal, and this we 
trust we have already sho\An must be dated from the date 
of the Gospel kingdom. 

The more common and accredited interpretation of the 
phrase * quick and dead ' makes it refer to those who shall 
be alive at Christ's second coming at the end of the world, 
and the dead who shall have died previously to that event, 
but who shall then be raised in order to be judged. ^^ None," 
says Pearson, '^ shall be there judged while they are dead ; 
whosoever stands before the judgment-seat shall appear alive; 
but those which never died, shall be judged as they were 
alive." The difficulty cleaving to this interpretation is, that 
we cannot find that 'end of the world' at which this event 
is held as ordained to transpire. We have shown, we think, 
that the only ' judgment of the dead ' of which the Scrip- 
tures speak as occurring at any particular epoch, is to be 
located at the commencement of the New Jerusalem state, 
which is indefinitely far from being at the winding up of the 
present mundane system. It is, on the contrary, the predict- 
ed consummation and perfection of that great order of things 
which has been so long evolving itself on earth, and which 
is at last to merge into a glorious sabbatism of the world, of 
undefined duration. The evidence of this must first be dis- 
posed of, before it will be possible to assign a general resur- 



340 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

rection and judgment, and the second advent of Christ, to 
any such imagined ' end of the world.' 

So again when Paul tells the Athenians that ** God had 
appointed a day when he would judge the world by that man 
whom he had ordained," we read nothing more in the dec- 
laration than what Paul as a Jew had learned from his own 
oracles respecting the day or dispensation of the Messiah, 
which was universally understood to be a day of judgment, 
and which has actually proved to be such by the course of 
events under the Gospel kingdom. 

That this is the true sense of this passage, as emanating 
from the mind of the Spirit by whom it was prompted, is 
to be inferred from the words that immediately follow — 
'' whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he 
hath raised him from the dead." We have already seen how 
intimately the resurrection of Christ is connected with the 
assumption of his regal dominion, to be exercised on earth 
during the Gospel dispensation, and the process of judgment 
begins at the same point and flows on through the same 
period. We see for ourselves nothing in the passage which 
necessarily implies the distant futurity of the day alluded 
to. On the contrary, when viewed in connexion with the 
general drift of the Scriptural announcements on this sub- 
ject, the most plain and obvious sense seems to be, that the 
day had already come — that after long ages of forbearance, a 
dispensation had now been ushered in of which Jesus Christ 
was the head, that was to be distinguished by a grand dis- 
criminating process among all classes of men. Of this 
truth the apostle affirms that God was now giving assurance 
(^TTagaa/cav, in the present tense), in the fact of having raised 
up Jesus from the dead. But he was raised up for this very 
purpose, that he might enter at once upon that great process 
of judgment by which his kingdom was to be characterized. 
In this fact consisted the force of the ' assurance.' And 
thus are we elsewhere informed, Rom. 14. 9, '^ To this end 
Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 341 

Lord both of the dead and living," and if Lord, then cer- 
tainly Judge. Nothing, we conceive, can be fairly urged 
against this interpretation, but the impressions which have 
been traditionally received on the general subject. But 
even these, we think, will give way before the demonstrable 
position, that the established rendering — ^ hath appointed a 
day,' — is entirely without proof It is impossible that the 
reader should be more surprised at the announcement of this 
fact, than were we ourselves at its discovery. A fact it 
nevertheless is. We are fully prepared to evince that the 
use, in this connexion, of the word ' appointed,' considered 
as synonymous with fixed ^ decreed, ordained, is completely 
unauthorized by the established diction of holy writ. The 
original word is e(TT7]a6, which, as every Greek scholar is 
aware, comes from the root Xcfti^^l, signifying in its primi- 
tive and intransitive sense to stand, thence in its active im- 
port, to cause to stand, to place, to settle, and finally, follow- 
ing the natural train of thought, to establish, ratify, confirm ; 
in which sense it is applied to confirming or establishing 
testimony — a kingdom — a law — an oath, &lc. The word 
occurs in the aorist, as here, twelve times in the New Tes- 
tament, exclusive of the present, in not one of which does 
it bear a sense that warrants the rendering in question. It 
is true, indeed, that both Schleusner and Bretschneider give 
the word in this passage the meaning o^ prcestituo, prcefigo, 
constituo, certo, dcfinio, to appoint ox fix beforehand ; but as 
they neither of them give any authority, it must of course 
be deemed no more than their private opinion, and the defi- 
nitions of a Lexicon are of very little account, except so far 
as they are sustained by the Concordance. But a reference 
to the Concordance will fail to ^.^ot^ a single instance, apart 
from this, where the sense of appoint, purpose, fix by previ- 
ous decree, can be legitimately assigned to the term. That 
idea, as we shall soon see, is appropriately expressed by an- 
other Word entirely. The instances, so far as we have been 
able to discover, which come nearest to the point, are the 



842 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

following: Mat. 26. 15, *^ And they covenanted (eaTVidav) 
with him for thirty pieces of silver." Acts I. 23, ''And 
they appointed (e(jTi](Tc/.v) two, Joseph and Matthias." This 
clearly denotes an act that was done at the time. Acts 7. 60, 
'* And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice. Lord, 
Z«3/ not this sin to their charge (py o-tt^o-?;?)." In nearly every 
other instance the word is used, in this tense, to denote a 
local standing or placing. In other modes and tenses, be- 
sides the literal sense of station or collocation, the dominant 
import of the verb is to establish, not in purpose, but in act. 
Thus Rom. 3. 31, '' Yea, we establish (IcrKxifiev) the law." 
Rom. 10. 3, ''Going about to establish (arrjaai) their own 
righteousness." Hebrews 10. 9, " He taketh away the first 
that he may establish (cnrjo-rj) the second." Mat. 18. 16, 
" That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
mai/ be established ((TiaS-fj).'^ We are unable to discover any 
other passages in the Gospels or Epistles bearing more di- 
rectly on the usus loquendi than those we have now cited, 
and from these it must be apparent that the rendering is not 
sustained, as in all of them the idea offuturition is entirely 
w^anting. They denote ^ present and not 2i purposed act. 

On recurring to the Septuagint we find the original verb 
in a vast majority of cases employed to represent either the 
Hebrew word T3^, to stand, or ::^5, pass. S225, to be set, placed, 
or stationed. Repeated examples occur of its being used 
in the metaphorical sense of establish, confirm, make sure 
and steadfast, precisely similar to those already quoted from 
the New Testament. But out of a list of four or fiwe hun- 
dred instances given in Trommius, we have not been able 
to find a single unequivocal case where the word is to be 
rendered in the sense of previously appointed, Ji zed, or or- 
dained, in reference to an event or a fact of future accom- 
plishment. But for this, in regard to both Testaments, a 
very good reason may be assigned. The proper term for 
expressing that idea is not tort/^t, but xld^i^^i, to put, to place, 
and secondarily to appoint, constitute, ordain, in which latter 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 343 

sense it is expressly applied to the designation of set times 
and seasons in Acts 1. 23: ^*It is not for you to know the 
times and the seasons which the Father has put {e&srOy set, 
constituted or Jixed) in his own power/' i. e. in the exercise 
of his supreme power. Other instances are the following : 
Acts 13. 47, ** I have set (^Ts&ELxa) thee to be a light of the 
Gentiles/' &c. Heb. 12, '' Whom he hath appointed {e&rjxa) 
heir of all things.'' 1 Thes. 5. 9, *' For God hath not appoint- 
ed {e&sTo) us to wrath," &c. 1 Pet. 2. 8, '' Whereunto also 
they were appointed (iTs&i]CFav).'' John 15. 16, ^' I have 
chosen you, and ordained (a&riy.a) you, that ye should go," 
&/C. This usage might be still farther illustrated, and with 
equal fulness, from the Septuagint, but we presume the above 
array of citations will be sufficient to make good our position, 
that the proper term, in Biblical style, for conveying the 
idea of decretory appointment is Tid^r^^i, and not Xdiii^i. 

To what conclusion then are we brought in regard to the 
passage before us, '*God hath appointed [eaTTjors) a day in 
which he will judge the world?" Is it not inevitable that 
the sense to be assigned is, that God hath established at 
the present time such day ? — that it is even now current — 
that it is brought in — and that in this fact Lies the great mo- 
tive to repentance which the apostle urges upon the Atheni- 
ans? We cannot for ourselves get over the evidence that 
the term in its genuine import denotes the establishment in 
the present time of the designated day; nor will it of course 
be possible to convict this view of error, except in the first 
instance, on philological and not on theological grounds. 
We have no peculiar complacency in disturbing or unset- 
tling the fixed views of Christendom in regard to the mean- 
ing of terms involving important points of doctrine. But 
then, on the other hand, we hold the claims of Truth to be 
imperative and paramount, and we cannot consent to pur- 
chase exemption from even the most trying imputations by 
withholding the utterance of our solemn convictions on the 
momentous themes of revelation. 



344 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Nor is it to be overlooked in this connexion, that several 
of the passages usually interpreted of a particular day of 
future judgment are in reality, in their genuine import, of a 
far more general bearing than the English reader would 
suppose. Thus Mat. 10. 15, /'Verily I say unto you, it 
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah 
in a day of judgment {iv rjfisga xghscag)^ than for that city." 
Mat. 1'2. 36, ''But I say unto you, that every idle word that 
men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in a day 
of judgment {iv '^fisga xglascog)." 2 Pet. 2. 9, " The Lord 
knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to 
reserve the unjust unto a day of judgment {slg r^^sgav y.glcrscog) 
to be punished.'' 2 Pet. 3. 7, "But the heavens and the 
earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire against a day of judgment (sig rjfisgav 
y^ghecog) and perdition of ungodly men." Rom. 2. 16, "In 
a day {iv fjfisga) when God shall judge the secrets of men by 
Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." In respect to these 
cases, and others similar, we do not feel called upon to pro- 
nounce as to the degree of positive testimony which they 
afford to the view of the subject we are now advocating. 
We simply adduce the usage as a matter of fact, upon 
which the reader will form his own opinion. There are 
indeed other instances where the more definite expression 
iv T]] rj^sgcc TigldEm, in the day of judgment, occurs, but the 
former also occurs, and is doubtless founded upon some 
sufficient reason, if we were capable of ascertaining it. 

At the same time we do not feel urged by any special 
necessity to rest the weight of our main conclusion on any 
minor point of doubtful criticism. The true sense of Scrip- 
ture is that sense which is according to truth. The grand 
doctrine of judgment revealed in the holy oracles is, that 
man shall be judged; just as the grand doctrine of the re- 
surrection is, that man shall rise. As to the exact manner of 
the accomplishment of the one or the other, we see no 
grounds for believing that any announcements of revela- 



THE SCRIPT [JRAL ARGUMENT. 345 

tion were designed to be so imperatively categorical and 
final as to preclude our rational researches into the intrinsic 
nature of those processes, or to forbid the adoption of the 
sound conclusions thence resulting. Let us suppose, then, 
that these results are in fact nothing short of the discovery 
that both the resurrection and the judgment actually resolve 
themselves into a Imv of our nattire — that our physical, 
psychical, and moral constitution is such, that we really and 
necessarily rise at death into the true resurrection, and that 
in so doing we ij)so facto become the subjects of ajudg-' 
ment which seals our destiny for eternal ages. Can we set 
aside this clear decision when we come to the interpreta- 
tion of the literal record bearing upon these events'? Is it 
possible that it should not control our construction of the 
letter of the word, in the numerous instances in which it 
seems to localize and tie down to a crisis a process which 
we know to be continually going on? Can we forego the 
certain and give ourselves up to the ambiguous? Is this 
the required mode of doing homage to that word which so 
often bids us to count truth our highest treasure ? And what, 
we ask again, is the true sense of Scripture but its accord- 
ance with truth ? 



We have thus, we believe, brought under review all the 
important and leading texts, both in the Old and New Tes- 
tament, bearing upon the subject of the Resurrection. We 
have endeavored to subject them to the test of a free but 
fair exegesis, and the results are now before us. Without 
assuming to be free from the bias which must be conceived 
as operating throughout in favor of the theory, so to term it, 
which we have aimed to establish, we may still, perhaps, be 
allowed to claim a competency to judge, in some impartial 
degree, of the weight of the evidence adduced in support of 



346 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

our position. Admitting the possibility that the Jaw of the 
development of our future being may be very probably 
ascertained by a scientific inquest into the physical and in- 
tellectual constitution with which we are endowed, the pre- 
sumption is certainly warranted that the language of revela- 
tion on the subject is so framed as not to be intrinsically in- 
consistent with our previous conclusions. It may not indeed 
be so constructed as to yield that as the most direct and ob- 
vious sense, which we are convinced is the true sense, and 
yet we should reasonably expect it to be of such a character 
as would not irreconcilably conflict with the assumed verity 
of the doctrine. We have seen, if we mistake not, that the 
language of the inspired oracles does really answer to this 
condition. It has been shown, we think, upon competent 
grounds, that the leading term employed for conveying the 
doctrine — 'Anastasis,' resurrection — genuinely implies the 
idea of future life, future living again after death. The 
implication of the revival of the dead body is not involved 
in the true sense of the word, in its general use in this con- 
nexion. The proof of this point must be considered as the 
virtual establishment of our position ; for the generally re- 
ceived sense of this term is the main pillar of the generally 
received doctrine. The inevitable query at once occurs. If 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not taught by 
the term ' resurrection ' fairly interpreted, by what is it 
taught?* We admit, indeed, the possibility that the term 

* " ' Revivification/ it is argued, ' implies previous deadness ; rising 
again, previous recumbency. But the interred body is alone either dead 
or recumbent. Reject the resurrection of the interred body, and you re- 
ject the resurrection altogether.' Revivification and resurrection, it is 
replied, imply continued organization ; the interred body is not only dead 
but entirely disorganized, therefore resurrection cannot apply to the in- 
terred body. Its so-called resurrection v^^ould not be resurrection but sub- 
limation. Resurrection applies to the deceased man, and not to that with 
w^hich he ceased, on his relatively dying, to have any connection, and 
v^^hich never formed a part of his essential manhood, a manhood neither 
composite nor partible. ... He w^ho, when he says,* I beHeve in the re- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 347 

may be used in such ccnnexions and relations, as to setm 
to teach the tenet in question, but we claim nevertheless 
to have shown, that in all the passages which would natu- 
rally be referred to and relied upon for this purpose, a sense 
may be elicited, without the least violence to language, that 
entirely harmonizes with the asserted genuine import of the 
term. 

What then becomes of the Scriptural evidence of the re- 
surrection of the body ? Does it not evaporate in the cruci- 
ble of logical and philological induction ? And is it not 
inevitable that a great change must come over our estimate 
of the doctrine, viewed as a disclosure of holy writ? Can 
it hereafter present the same aspect to the reflecting mind 
as formerly, when conceived to involve the averment of the 
requickening of the inhumed relics of the corporeal struc- 
ture? Especially, are we not presented with a new and all- 
important view of the central fact, our Saviour's resurrec- 
tion ? Conscious we may be of a severe shock to all our 
fixed preconceptions on the subject, so that we can scarcely 
refrain from the exclamation of Mary, ^* They have taken 
away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him," 
and yet can the evidence be resisted? But if admitted, how 
sublime and interesting the inference that follows ! As our 
Lord forthwith emerged from his temporary subjection to 
death into a glorious resurrection-state, so also do all his 
members, the participants of that divine quickening princi- 
ple which they derive from him, pass at once from their cor- 
ruptible to their incorruptible existence, and appear in his 
presence clad in his likeness. No centurial sleep of the 
soul — no imperfect state of disembodied consciousness — no 
semi-celestialized condition — awaits the heirs of ^ the resur- 

surrection of the body/ really means, ' I believe in the sublimation of the 
corpse,' says what he really does not mean, or really believe. The an- 
cient millenarians were more honest, though not less mistaken ; they be- 
lieved in the resurrection of every tooth and nail." — Stephenson's Chris- 
tology,Yo\. II. p. 193. 



348 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

rection and the life.' The deposition of their garments of 
flesh is but the signal for their enrobement with the vesture 
of light in which they shall shine forth as the brightness of 
the sun in the firmament of heaven. No unrelieved longing 
for the resumption of their * house which is from earW can 
chill the ardor of ecstatic spirits for ever at home in their 
' houses which are from heaven.^ The departure of the saints 
from the present life is but the development of that heaven- 
ly manhood which admits them at once to eternal fellowship 
with all that are within the veil, and to a complete and ever- 
lasting union with their risen and redeeming Head, around 
whom the spirit-bodied hosts, in ever multiplying circles, 
continue to cluster. The true Levites of the universe, they 
gather round the celestial tabernacle, the enthronement of 
the Shekinah, whose light is ever on them, and to whose 
glory their own will be for ever more and more assimilated 
By being translated they become eternally transfigured, like 
Moses and Elias on the holy mount, and no supervening 
* heaviness from sleep' shall ever interrupt the exclamation — 
prompted by a rapture which Peter never knew — ' Lord, it 
is fifood for us to be here !' 



CHAPTER XI. 
** The Times of the Restitution of all Things.'^ 

The obvious relation of the remarkable passage in Pe- 
ter's discourse. Acts 3. 19-21, to the general subject of 
Scriptural Eschatology, with which our whole discussion is 
closely linked, suggests the propriety of a somewhat minute 
and critical survey of the apostle's language. It holds, as 
is well known, a prominent place in the general system of 
interpretation denominated Millenarian, and in the view 
which that theory takes of it, it stands confrontingly in the 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 349 

way of the leading results to which we have come in the 
preceding pages. We propose, therefore, to attempt a care- 
ful exegesis of the passage, the results of which may perhaps 
leave it in the attitude of alliance rather than of conflict 
with our dominant conclusions. 

Acts TIL 19-21. 

GR. ENG. VERS. 

Metavoiqaare ovv Kal stti- Repent ye therefore, and be 

<yTQ8xpaTE, elg rb i^aXeicpd-Jivcu converted, that your sins may 

< ^ ^ ^ / rr ' ,^ bc blotted out, when the times 

vf^^v rag af.aQnag,orrcog^ av ^^ ,^^,^^^^^ '^^all come from 

sl{>Q(iai yiCLiQOi^avaxpv^eoog ano the presence of the Lord 5 

TTQOgCOTTOV tOV XVQIOV, 

Kal anoaiEiXri rov ttqoxeX' ^^^ ^^^ shall send Jesus 
ELQiauivov viuv 'Iriaovv Xqi- Christ, which before was 
^r^ ^ * ^ preached unto yon : 

^'Ov del ovQCivov i^h di^a- Whom the heaven must re- 

c^cii avQi xQorcov aTtoxara- ceive, until the times of restitu- 

A,^ ^A,v ^ tioj^ of ail thmgs, which God 

araaecog Ttarrcov, cov elalrjasv ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^» [^^ ^^^^^ ^^ 

oi^aog dia aTOfmTogzavayioov all his holy prophets since the 
avTOv 7iQoq)rjT6ov an aloovog. world began. 

These words are a part of Peter's discourse on the occa- 
sion of the healing of a lame man at the Beautiful Gate of 
the Temple. As the people flocked together in amaze, on 
the report of the miracle, Peter seized the opportunity to 
preach to them Christ crucified, at the same time charging 
upon them the guilt of his slaying, and affirming that God 
had again raised him from the dead, of which they (the 
apostles) were witnesses, and that it was through faith in 
the name of this crucified and risen Saviour, that perfect 
soundness had been imparted to the cripple before them. 
He then goes on to mention all the apology of which their 
conduct would admit, to wit, that they had done it through 
ignorance ; and finally closes by urging them to repent, from 
this among other motives, — that their sins might be blotted 
out when the times of refreshing should come from the pres- 
ence of the Lord, 

16 



350 , THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The inference is doubtless very clear that Peter alludes 
to a time or state of things which there was reason to ex- 
pect; and which was in fact the subject of a well-known 
and prevalent anticipation among the Jews. The grounds 
of such an anticipation must of course have been the prophetic 
announcements of the Old Testament, and these we are no 
doubt able to recognize in many of that class of predictions 
which are emphatically termed Messianic. But before at- 
tempting to specify these, it will be well to endeavor to 
concentrate all attainable light upon the import of the ex- 
pression icaigol avaipv'^scogj times of refreshing. 

The term avaijjvlig^ which occurs but in this single in- 
stance in the New Testament, is derived from the verb 
avaipvxca, the distinct primitive elements of which, according 
to some lexicographers, are ara, again, and ipv/og, cold, and 
thus intimating that kind of refreshment or recreation which 
is produced by cooling, after excessive heat. The Vulgate 
accordingly renders the phrase in this place by tempora re- 
frigerii, times of refrigeration. As however a leading 
sense of the verb ipvx^, the ultimate radical, is to breathe, 
so the refreshing indicated by the term avaipv^ig involves the 
closely related idea of that free respiration, which is effected 
for instance, by the operation of fanning, when one is ex- 
hausted and faint. The definitions given by Hesychius and 
Stephens of the primitive etymon illustrate the usage still 
more fully. The latter thus defines avaipvx^-, refrigero, 
eventilo; inter dum pro abstergo, desicco; metaphor ice, recreo, 
refocillo ; refcio, proprie refcio a calore. He then quotes 
Eustathius, who says that avdiijv/stv implies restoration from a 
kind of deliquium, or failure of animation, as aTtoipv^siv 
on the contrary, signifies anlmam efflare, to breathe out 
the soul, or to experience a suspended animation. As to 
the derivative ocvdipv^g, he remarks that while its literal 
sense is refrigeration, it is used metaphorically for recre- 
ation, refreshment (refocillatio). Hesychius in his lex- 
icon defines the verb ccvayjv/o} by ocvsjulaai^, from avsuog^ wind, 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 351 

i- e., to refresh by agitating the air, and the participle ava- 
ipi/Mv by avanvibjv^ breathing again; and the substantive 
avaipv^ig is equivalent to avuTiavcrig, rest, and also in some 
cases to Tragainv&la, consolation, comfort, with which 
agrees the Syriac rendering of the present passage, tijnes of 
tranquillity. 

On the whole, we collect from these authorities the lead- 
ing idea of cooling from the agitation of the air, and that 
consequent refreshment and invigoration which is the result 
of a freer and fuller respiration, to one who is well nigh ex- 
hausted by oppressive heat or fatigue. It implies a kind of 
return to the body of its animating principle, and an effect 
which we should express in English by the word inspirit- 
ing, as the relation of the original word to v^r/rj, soul, is 
very obvious. 

As to the Septuagint usage, this particular word occurs 
there also but once, viz., Ex. 8. 15 : *' But when Pharaoh 
saw that there was respite (avdipvh?)^ he hardened his 
heart," where the original Heb. nn;^ properly implies 
relaxation, remission. But the cognate avaipv/tj, and the 
verb avcupv/o), not unfrequently occur in a very analogous 
sense, although employed as the representative of different 
Heb. words. Thus, Ps. 66. 12, '^ We went through fire and 
water ; but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place (slg 
avaipv/ry).^' Jer. 49. 31, '^ Arise, get you up unto the wealthy 
nation, that dwelleth without care {y^y.-d-rjiierog dg avaipv/rjv )." 
Ps. 39. 13, ^'O spare me, that I may recover strength 
[avaipv/b)) before I go hence and be no more." The Heb. 
is here SiJ"^^^^, from r^ba , to exhilarate, Ex. 23. 12, " That 
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thine hand- 
maid and the stranger may be refreshed {ava\pv^ri)J' Heb. 
-iSi*! , may be re-souled, from root ^SJ, soul. 2 Sam. 16. 14, 
^* And the king, and all the people that were with him, 
came weary, and refreshed (aveipv^av) themselves there." 
Heb .^33^^, as before. 1 Sam. 16. 23, ''So Saul was 
refreshed {civsipv/s) , and was well." Heb. ni'n to be loide, 



352 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

spacious, hence metaphorically to have space to breathe in, to 
he refreshed. In all these cases the predominant sense of what 
may be iexmed freshened animation is obvious. But this idea 
is closely related to that oi resurrection, considered in its fre- 
quent scriptural sense of moral or spiritual revivification ; 
and therefore it is not surprising that some commentators 
have been led to compare this phrase with the Syriac and 
Chaldaic formula * day of consolation' for ' day of resurrec- 
tion.' H'os. 6. 2, ^' He will revive (or vivify) us in the days 
•of consolation, which shall come in the days of the vivifica- 
tion of the dead." As we have already seen that the 
sense of refreshment, as expressed by the word before us, is 
analogous to that of consolation, and as consolation and 
resurrection convey in these ancient dialects kindred con- 
ceptions, it is but taking a legitimate step in logic to con- 
nect the idea of refreshment or reanimation with that of 
resurrection, i. e., spiritual resurrection. Accordingly 
Heinsius remarks {Exerc. S, S. p. 272), that ''the Rab- 
binical writers call the future life a refreshing — DblS)^ nm^ 
5<13!n, respiration in the world to come, as when they say 
one hour of refreshment in the ivorld to come is better than a 
whole life in the present world." The phrase therefore we 
take to be a general designation of the auspicious times of the 
Messiah, in connexion with whose dispensation there was 
to be a period of revival and refreshment, which is fre- 
quently set forth under terms appropriate to a grand 
spiritual quickening, such as we have already intimated to 
be characteristic of that destined economy. An equivalent 
phraseology discloses itself repeatedly in the Old Testament 
prophets, and the predicted inspiriting the dry bones and 
lifeless bodies of Ezekiel's vision is perhaps to be recog- 
nized as one of the foundation passages on which it rests. 

An allusion, though somewhat obscurely conveyed, may 
perhaps be recognized in the passage to Is. 28. 12, '' To 
whom he said. This is the rest w^herewith ye may cause 
the weary to rest ; and this is the refreshing (Vulg. re- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 353 

frifrerium) : yet they would not hear." It is worthy of no- 
tice, that the Hebrew word for rest in this text is Hf^^^'s, from 
ri^s to rest, the true origin of the Syriac ]7\ ^^i rendered 
tranquillity in the passage of Peter, and closely related to 
IVfiMoJ nuliama, rendered consolation, and applied, as we 
have already seen, to the resurrection. 

Viewed in the light now suggested, the words are a very 
appropriate and characteristic designation of the times of 
the Messiah, or the great Gospel era. This was to be a 
period of moral quickening, refreshing, and rest, and the 
phrase before us falls into entire coincidence with the res- 
titution or restoration of all things, shortly to be considered. 
This period is to be regarded as commencing with the com- 
mencement of the Gospel kingdom ; and this we have al- 
ready shown to be synchronical with the incipient second 
coming of Christ after his resurrection and ascension. The 
drift of Peter's exhortation is, that his hearers should repent, 
as the grand and indispensable means of bringing upon them 
the signal blessings of this glorious and happy dispensation, 
which had just opened upon the world. It was only in this 
way that they could come into a full participation of the in- 
estimable benefits of the Gospel economy. 

But it might seem that a different shade of meaning is 
given to the passage by the words of our established version : 
^* Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may 
be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come," 
&/C. But upon recurrence to the original, we find great 
reason to doubt whether the true sense of the words is given 
in this connexion. The reading of the Greek is onwg av 
eXd^ojcn, of which the rendering accredited by prevailing 
usage is undoubtedly in order that they may come, instead of 
when they come, or when they may have come. The latter 
sense is perhaps grammatically possible, and is actually 
adopted by several respectable commentators. Thus Beza, 
E. Schmidius, and Glassius, render by * postquam venerint,' 
after they shall have come. Vulg. * ut cum venerint,' that 



354 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



lohen they may have come. It is observed however by Kuinoel, 
that the examples cited in support of this construction are 
not strictly in point, as the verb followins: the particle is in 
the indicative instead of the subjunctive mode, as here. The 
soundest view, therefore, is undoubtedly that adopted by the 
mass of interpreters who take oTnaq av in the telic sense of 
' that,' ^ in order that,' i. e., as denoting the Jinal cause or 
reason of the specified action. The phrase occurs frequent- 
ly in the Septuagint, in which it answers to k^^, to the end 
that J as Ps. 9. 14, '^ That I may show forth [ojiMg Sv s^ayyelXa)) 
thy praises." Ps. 92. 7, That they may be destroyed (o7i(og 
at^ i'^oXo&^n'(Tat(TLv) for ever.'' Ps. 119. 101, ''That I may 
keep {oTTcxig av cpvXd^co) thy words." Thus too in the New Tes- 
tament, Acts 15. 17, '' That the residue of men may seek {ojiwg 
av iy,^'i]Trj(Toj(nv) the Lord." Luke 2. 35, '' That the thoughts of 
many hearts may be revealed (orcMg av anoxaXvcp&ojcnv).'' Rom. 
3. 4, '* That thou mayest be justified {iTicag av dLTcaiajdfjg).'* 
So in Aristophanes, oTiwg av sldj]^ that he may know. Thus 
too the Syriac version of the passage, '' That your sins may 
be blotted out, and the times of refreshing wz^y come.'' Ter- 
tullian, ' Ut tempora superveniant,' that the times may super- 
vene. IrensBUs, ' Ut veniant,' that they fnay come.^ 

These examples are doubtless sufficient to establish the 
usage. The purport of the apostolic injunction is, that 
they should repent in order that the times of refreshing 
might come. Consequently the remarks of Lightfoot on the 
passage, viewed in its Millenarian bearings, stand in all their 



* " "O-wcog is used 52 times without aV ; and in every instance (ex- 
cept one, where it is an adverb, and is properly translated ' how') it is 
rightly rendered ' that,' — being equivalent with 'Iva uvrc^g, i. e. ut sic or 
quomodo fiet, as is rightly observed by Hoogeveen, p. 246. The word 
used in the New Testament to express ' the time wherC is iirei. "Orwj is 
not once found in this sense ; and is seldom so used by other writers. 
"When it does so occur, it is followed by an indicative (like ut, when, in 
Latin), as Iliad, B. XVII. 308." — Investigator of Prophecy, Vol. 11. p. 54. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 855 

force : *^ The apostle is to be understood as speaking con- 
cerning the present refreshing by the Gospel, and God's pres- 
ent sending Christ among them in the power and ministry 
of that, — and not of a refreshing at the calling of the Jews, 
which is yet to come ; and God's sending Christ personally 
to come and reign among them, as some have dreamed; and 
it is but a dream. For let but this text be seriously weigh- 
ed in that sense, that opinion would make of it : * Repent 
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted 
out when the times of refreshing come :' as meaning this : 
* Repent ye now, that your sins may be blotted out two 
thousand, or I know not how many hundred years hence, 
when the calling of the Jews shall come,' If this be not 
the sense that they may make of this text, that produce it to as- 
sert Christ's personal reign on earth for a thousand years, — 
I know not why they should then produce it ; and if this be 
the sense, I must confess I see no sense in it." He then 
goes on to observe with the utmost justice, as we conceive, 
that ** the words are facile and clear, and have no intricacy 
at all in them, if the Scripture may be suffered to go upon 
its own wheels ; and they may be taken up in this plain and 
undeniable paraphrase : ^ Repent ye, therefore, and be con- 
verted, that your sins maybe blotted out; so that the times 
of refreshing by the Gospel may come upon you from the 
presence of the Lord ; and he may send Jesus Christ in the 
preaching of the Gospel to you, to bless you in turning 
away every one of you from his iniquities.' " 

The only objection that can be urged, with any show of 
reason, against this interpretation is, that it represents a state 
of things which had already come as being still a subject of 
future occurrence. How, it is asked, could the Jews be ex- 
horted to repent in order to bring about an event which, by 
the supposition, had already entered upon a process of ful- 
filment ? The sufficient reply is, that no impropriety can 
be charged upon the use of this language, when we are ex- 
pressly taught to pray that the * kingdom of God may come^ 



356 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

although that kingdom was long ago established, and has in 
fact been coming, from age to age, ever since the period of 
the ascension ? In uttering this prayer, we merely express 
the desire that the kingdom may continue to come — that it 
may come with deeper power and wider spread — that it may 
more fully realize to men all the blessings it was intended 
to convey. So it is easy to conceive that although the 
* times of refreshing ' had really been ushered in, and Peter's 
hearers were living under them, yet their repentance might 
still be the means, and the only means, of securing to them- 
selves all the benign effects which those * times ' were cal- 
culated to produce. Mr. Barnes in his Notes (in loc.) has 
well expressed the leading idea of the passage in the follow- 
ing paraphrase : — ^^ ' You are living under the times of the 
Gospel, the reign of the Messiah, the times of refreshing. 
This happy, glorious period has been long anticipated, and 
is to continue to the close of the world ; the period in- 
cluding the restitution of all things, and the return of Christ 
to judgment, has come ; and is therefore the period when 
you can find mercy, and you sJiould seek it, to be prepared 
for his return.' In this sense the passage refers to the fact, 
that this time, this dispensation, this economy, including all 
this, had come, and they were living under it, and might 
and should seek for mercy. It expresses, therefore, the 
common belief of the Jews, that such a time should come, and 
the comment of Peter about its nature and continuance. 
That time had come. The doctrine that it should come 
was well founded, and had been fulfilled. This was a rea- 
son why they should repent and hope in the mercy of God." 
On any other view, we can see no pertinency in the apostle's 
argument. 

** And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was 
preached unto you ;" that is, — ' And the promise of send- 
ing Jesus Christ shall be fulfilled.' It does not, any more 
than the former phrase, imply the fuiurition of the sending 
relatively to the time when Peter uttered the words, but in 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT, 357 

reference to the time when the promise was given. Thus 
in like manner, Mat. 17. 11, '' And Jesus answered and 
said, Elias truly shall Jirsf cornc, and restore all things ;'* 
that is, the declaration that Elias should first come was true, 
although he immediately adds that it had already taken 
place. So here. The economy, the dispensation, which 
was to be distinguished by this second coming of Christ, 
had entered upon its incipient stages, and they are ex- 
horted to hasten to avail themselves of its advantages. 

'^ Whom the heaven must receive (ov del oigarov fiev 
ds^aa&ai).^^ The grammatical construction is here subject 
to some doubt, as the w^ords may be rendered either, 

* whom the heaven must receive,' or, ' w^ho must receive 
.the heaven.' Commentators are accordingly divided as to 

their genuine import. The drift of the announcement is 
substantially the same on either construction, but for our- 
selves we prefer the latter, from its bringing the passage 
into harmony with repeated intimations in Daniel, where 
the term * heaven,' or ' heavens,' is expressively employed 
to denote, by way of eminence, the seat of the mediatorial 
kingdom, and in fact equivalent to the Divine Occupant 
himself Thus, Dan. 4. 26, " Thy kingdom shall be sure 
unto thee after that thou shalt have known that the heavens 
do rule^ So the phrases, * the God of heaven,' ' the Lord 
of heaven,' * the kingdom of heaven,' &.C., are of more 
frequent occurrence in Daniel than any other sacred writer, 
and he is peculiarly the prophet of the second advent, 
which commenced on the establishment of the Gospel king- 
dom. The necessity, therefore, of the fulfilment of these 
predictions of Daniel seems to have laid the foundation for 
the use of the word du^ must. The express declarations of 
the Old Testament prophet made it not only^^ and proper, 
but absolutely indispensable, that our risen Lord should 

* receive,' i. e. should occupy, the heavens as his permanent 
abiding place, and the palace of his power, till all his 
enemies were subdued. It was necessary, moreover, in 

16* 



353 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

order to the fulfilment of the oracle, Ps. 110. 1, *' Sit thou at 
my right hand, till I have made thine enemies thy footstool.^' 
The words therefore are an intimation of the poioer and 
exaltation to which Christ was to be advanced, and which 
is elsewhere expressed as follows: 1. Pet. 3. 22, ** Who is 
gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God ; angels 
and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.'* 
Heaven was henceforth to be his throne, from which the 
affairs of his kingdom were to be administered, and from 
which he was still to be continually coming, as we have 
already shown, in the demonstrations of his spiritual power 
and his all-controlling providence. But this brings us to a 
still more important part of the announcement. 

*' Until the times of the restitution of all things, which 
God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since 
the world began." The true construction of this clause 
depends upon the determination of the genuine import of 
the phrase a/gi /govcov, until the times. On this point we 
do not hesitate to adopt the sense of during, implying not 
the terminus but the continuance, of the period in question, 
or, in other words, that Christ is to continue to occupy the 
heavens during and to the end of the times of the restitution 
•f all things. The usage confirming this acceptation is 
capable of being very fully illustrated. The following are 
cases strikingly in point.* Acts 2u. 6, '' And came unto 
them to Troas in Jive days {(>^/gig rj^^gwv nsvjs) ;'' i. e. were 
five days in accomplishing the voyage. Acts 13. 11, 
'' Thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season 
{ii/gc xaigov) ;" i. e. during a season. Luke 4. 13 : ** And 
when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed 
from him /or a season {a/gi yiaigovY'; i. e. during a season. 
Acts 27. 33, '' And lohile («/^t ov) the day was coming on ;" 
i. e. during the time that the day was dawning. Rom. 8. 

* " Non semper terminum temporis seu tempus ad quod, sed etiam 
intervallum, tractum temporis quo aliquid factum fuerit, significat." 
— Schleusner. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 359 

22, '* The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain 
together until now {a/gi tov vxv) ;'' i. e. during the whole past 
interval till now. Rom, 11, 25, ** Blindness in part is hap- 
pened to Israel until (JxxQig ov) the fulness of the Gentiles 
be come in ;" i. e, as Schleusner renders it, ' So long as the 
fulness of the Gentiles shall be coming in.' Heb. 3. 13, 
** But exhort one another daily while {cixQi<s ov) it is called 
to-day/' 

The fact is, this will be found upon examination to be 
the predominant sense of the term, and we do not hesitate 
to apply it to the following passages: Rev. 15. 8, '\ And no 
man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues 
of the seven angels were fulfilled {ti/Qi TeXea&Mair) ;'' I e, 
so long as these plagues were fulfilling. Rev, 17. 17, '' For 
God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, 
and give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God 
shall be fulfilled (Te^ea&iiaomi) :" i. e. while the v/ords of 
God are fulfilling. Rev, 20. 3, '' That he should deceive 
the nations no more till the thousand yenrs should be ful- 
filled {u^Qi TEkea&rj) ;" i. e. while the thousand years should 
be in the course of fulfilment. Rev. 20. 5, '' The rest of 
the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished 
{H/gi TsXfd&f]) ;" i. e. while the thousand years were finishing ; 
which, however, by no means implies that they c^'^live after 
the expiration of that time, as there is no authority for the 
insertion of the word ^ again' in the text. 

The foregoing adduction of instances we presume will be 
sufficient to afford a very strong confirmation of the sense we 
have assigned to the term in the passage before us. Christ 
retains his celestial throne during the lapse of the entire 
period that the grand restitution is going on, nor is there 
any necessary implication that he will even then, in any 
sense, vacate it, or return to the earth in any different 
manner from that in which he had continued to visit it 
during the whole period of his heavenly session, viz., by his 



360 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Spiritual and providential presence. But we may still admit 
that though the manner will be the same, the degree will be 
difFereut. We think there is abundant evidence that there 
is in reserve for the latter days of this world's destiny a far 
more illustrious and glorious display of the spiritual power 
of Christ in his Gospel than has ever yet been witnessed, 
but as to any such event as is usually anticipated under the 
denomination of the second personal advent, we apprehend 
that it will never arrive, simply for the reason that we be- 
lieve such an advent was never promised, and that that 
whioh was promised took place, or began to take place, 
whe7i it was promised, and that was eighteen centuries ago. 
If the developments of time should hereafter realize such a 
coming f it will of course establish the fallacy of our conclu- 
sions. But we abide firm in the conviction that nothing but 
time will doit.* 

But the purport of the remaining clause now claims 
attention : ** The times of the restitution of all things." 



* The following are selected from among the Jewish testimonies to 
the tenet of a signal ' restitution' under the reign of the Messiah. 

" Man shall be restored in that time, namely in the days of the Mes- 
siah, to that state in which he was before the first man sinned." E. 
Moses Nachmanides in Deut. § 45. 

" R. Berakyah, in the name of R. Samuel, said : Although things were 
created perfect, yet when the first man sinned, they were corrupted a»d 
will not again return to their congruous state till Pherez (i. e. the Mes- 
siah) comes, as it is said Ruth 4. 18, ' These are the generations (ni^Vtn 
toledoth) of Pherez.' ' Toledoth' is written full (with i) because there 
are six things which shall be restored to their primitive state, viz., the 
splendor of man, his life, the height of his stature, the fruits of the earth, 
the fruits of the trees, and the luminaries (the sun, moon, and stars.)" 
Bereshith Rabha, Fol. 11, Col. 3. 

" In that time (i. e. of the Messiah) the whole work of creation shall 
be changed for the better, and shall return into its perfect and pure state, 
as it was in the time of the first man^ before he had sinned." R. Becai 
in Shilcan Orba, FoL 9, Col. 4. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 361 

The original term aTtoTtcndcnacng is a derivative from 
ccTioxa&lo-TT^uL^ of which the primitive sense is to restore, 
as for instance, a sprained or dislocated limb to its former 
soundness, a diseased body to health, a captive people to 
their own country, a distracted or lawless community to 
order and good government. Hence the noun is defined 
by philologists by emendatio, restitutio in pr^istinum statum, 
mutationem in meliorem conditionem ; all importing restitu- 
tion, or restoration to a better state and condition.^ With 
this is obviously closely related the idea of consummation, 
completion, perfection; whence Hesychius and Phavorinus 
represent it by jshlooaig^ perfection. By the earlier inter- 
preters it was understood in this connexion as equivalent to 
accomplishment, or exhibition, or disposition, ox final settle- 
ment. Thus the Syr. 'Until the fulness of the time of all 
things.' Arab., 'Until the times in which all the things 
shall be perfected or finished.' Iren. ' Until the times of 
the disposition of all the things,' &.c. Tertull., ' Until the 
times of the exhibition of all the things,' &:.c. GEcum., ' Until 
the times that all the things come to an end.' 

Mr. Faber endeavors to make out from the word the 
sense of the actual accomplishment^ the completed result, the 
effected settlement or restoration of all things. To this he 
was led by his desire to set aside the hypothesis of a pre- 
millenarian restitution, which of course requires the sense, 
not of a completed, but of a commencing and current restitu- 
tion of all things predicted, which is to be wrought under 
the personal reign of Christ, during the Millennial period. 
On the one theory, therefore, this restitution is to be dated 

* " Quamdiu tempora N. T. durant, quibus per religionem Chris- 
tianam omnia in meliorem statum sunt redigenda/' as long as the times 
of the N. T. continue, in which by means of the Christian religion all 
things shall he reduced to a letter state." Schleusner in voc. 

" 'ATTOKardaraaiS; the restoration of any thing to its for7ner state: hence 
change from worse to letter, melioration, introduction of a new and let- 
ter era'' Robinson's Lex. of N. T. in voc. 



362 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

at the commencement of the Millennium, when Christ is sup- 
posed to return in person to the earth ; but on the other, at 
the close, to which it is contended the second personal ad- 
vent is more properly to be referred. Of these two view^s 
the former undoubtedly involves the more correct interpre- 
tation of the term, which denotes the act or process of resti- 
tution, but it is, in our view, utterly erroneous in regard to 
the time to which this process is to be assigned. The * res- 
titution of all things,' as we conceive it, is but another 
name for that grand system of restoration or rectification 
which was to distinguish the earthly and spiritual reign of 
the Messiah during the continuance of the Gospel kingdom, 
the commencement of which is to be carried back to the 
era of the ascension. At that era, our Lord's reception or 
occupancy of heaven began, and while he was seated on his 
august throne in heaven, this process of ' restitution ' was to 
be going on on the earth, conducted under his divine auspi- 
ces, and brought at last to the sublime consummation which 
is the burden of all prophecy, viz., the complete subjugation 
of every opposing powder, and the universal and heart-felt 
acknowledgment of his supremacy as King of kings and 
Lord of lords. Thus considered, the 'times of restitution " 
is but another name for that glorious Palingenesia or re- 
generation of which our Saviour himself speaks in the prom- 
ise to the chosen twelve, Mat. 19. 23, and ^to which Paul 
refers Heb. 9. 10, under the phrase * time of reformation ' 
(xacQog dioQd'cx)(Tkog, time of setting to rights.)* Such a state 
of things was to be the result, gradually perfected, of the in 
troduction of the evangelical economy, and notwithstanding 
the hitherto partial and inadequate developments wrought 



* " The word here rendered reformation {6i6p9coaig) means properly 
emendation, improvement, reform. It refers to putting a thing in a right 
condition ; making it better ; or raising up and restoring that which has 
fallen down. Here the reference is undoubtedly to the gospel as being a 
better system — a putting things where they ought to &e." Barnes in Ice. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 363 

out by the spirit and the institutions of Christianity, no 
candid arbiter can fail to acknowledge, that a stupendous 
transformation has been effected by them on the wide arena 
of the world, and that the leaven is still latently working 
which shall eventually leaven the whole lump of human 
kind. 

What is wanting, then, in support of our interpretation ? 
Does not the apostle's appeal rest, on the view propounded, 
on a solid and sustainable basis ? He exhorts the Jews to 
repentance, on the ground of that expected dispensation 
having been actually ushered in, which was the theme of the 
sublimest visionings of the ancient seers. They were then 
living under that economy which was pre-eminently to be 
distinguished as a period of * refreshing' and * restitution.' 
Jesus Christ had been exalted to heaven in person^ that he 
might thence be sent to them in spirit and in power. ^ In 

* '' I may, perhaps, betray my ignorance in the Greek tongue, if I 
should confess that I cannot see by what authority of that language the 
most learned interpreters have rendered o-rrcog av sXdcjcnv ' that when the 
times of refreshing sAaZZ come,' as the Vulgar, Erasmus, and the Interline- 
ar ; or * when they shall come,' as the English, French, and Italian ; or 
* fl/^er they shall come,' as Beza. I am not ashamed to confess, I do 
not understand by what reason they thus render it, when it agrees so well 
with the idiom of that language to translate it, ^ That the times of re- 
freshing may come,' and ' God may send Jesus Christ to you.' These last 
words, * may send Jesus Christ,' I suppose have begot the difficulty in 
this place, and occasioned the variety of versions we meet with : and 
how the Chilliasts apply these things is well known. But if our interpre- 
tation be admitted, what could be more fully and plainly said to answer 
the conceptions of the auditors, who might be ready to object against 
what St. Peter had said — * Is it so indeed ? Was that Jesus whom we 
have crucified, the true Christ ? Then is all our hope of refreshment by 
the Messiah vanished, because he himself is vanished and gone. Then 
our expectation, as to the consolation of Israel, is at an end, because he 
who should be our consolation, is perished.' ' Not so,' saith St, Peter, 
' but the Messiah, and the refreshing by him, shall be restored to you, if 
you will repent : yet so that he himself shall continue still in heaven. 
He shall be sent to you in his refreshing and consolatory word, and in 
his benefits, if you repent.' " Lightfoot Heb. 6j Talm, Exerc. on ActsS. 19. 



364 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

the subsequent context he assures them that he had been 
thus sent, as he expressly affirms, v. 26, *^Unto you first, 
God having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, 
in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."* 
What ground then remains for the Millenarian application 
of this passage to the future paradisaical state, which is to 
be effected in the physical and moral universe, at the 
second personal coming of Christ immediately before the 
commencement of the blessed thousand years ? Is not this, 
as Mr. Faber remarks, persuading the apostle to declare an 
entirely different fact from that which his words, fairly in- 
terpreted, convey ? We have seen, if we mistake not, that 
the inspired apostle, in speaking of the * times of refreshing 

* " This cannot possibly be understood of Christ's personally and 
visibly coming among them ; for who of this audience ever saw him after 
his resurrection 1 — but of his coming among them now in this offer and 
means of salvation. And in the same sense is the clause, v. 20, to be 
understood ; and so the 22nd verse interpreteth it of the sending of 
Christ as the great Prophet, to whom whosoever will not hearken, must 
be cut off: — not at the end of the world, when he shall come as a judge ; 
but in the Gospel, which is his ' voice ;' and which to refuse to hearken 
to, is condemnation. Peter's exhortation, therefore, is to repentance, that 
their sins might be blotted out, so that refreshing times might come upon 
them, and Christ in the Gospel might be sent among them, according as 
Moses had foretold, that he should be the great instructor of the people." 
Lightfoot, Comment, in lo(f. It is proper, however, here to remark that 
dva(rTds, having raised up, is understood by many commentators, not of 
the resurrection, but of the bringing into the world, of Jesus, the Son of 
God, and we cannot in truth refuse to acknowledge a high degree of 
plausibility in that construction, compared with the use of the term in 
other places, though still confident that Lightfoot's interpretation cannot be 
positively shown to be erroneous. If the other sense be admitted to be 
the more probable, it merely follows that the language of Peter refers to 
the first as well as to the second advent — to the literal as well as the 
spiritual — and this may be conceded without abating at all of the force of 
our previous reasonings in regard to the true import of the ' times of res- 
titution of all things.' So long as the philological argument founded upon 
the current usage of a;)(;jOf, remains unanswered, our main conclusion must 
stand unassailed. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 365 

and of the restitution of all things' as having already come^ 
does but echo the general voice of announcement sounded 
out by the whole succession of prophets ' from the begin- 
ning of the world.' The burden of their oracles is, that the 
establishment of his kingdom was the ushering in of an 
economy of which the grand character was to be refresh- 
menty restitution, renovation, rectification, resettling, and 
that the commencing epoch of this kingdom was to be his 
own exaltation at the Father's right hand, from which point 
the destinies of this spiritual empire were to begin to evolve, 
and to result in the final consummation shadowed forth in 
the descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth, be- 
yond which revelation makes no disclosures. 



CHAPTER XIL 
ClirisVs ** Delivering up the Kingdom J^ 

The event indicated as the subject of the present chap- 
ter is related to our particular theme only as one depart- 
ment of the general scheme of Eschatology, with which the 
Resurrection naturally enters into close connexion. We 
have determined to make it the topic of some remarks, from 
the strong conviction, that the true purport of the passage, 
as expressed in the original, has been greatly misconceived, 
and a consequent error of signal moment introduced into 
the current anticipations of the futurities of Christ's king- 
dom. It is doubtless the prevalent belief, that the apostle's 
language warrants the expectation of some great change 
that is eventually to take place in our Saviour's mediatorial 
relations — that there is to be some important surrender of 
the official prerogatives with which he was previously in- 
vested, and the consequent assumption of some new posi- 



366 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESITRRECTION. 

tion in the grand economy of which lie is ever to be regard- 
ed as the great central point. Of such an anticipation we 
are wholly unable for ourselves to discover the grounds in 
any other portion of the Scriptures of truth, and this fact 
of itself, the lack of parallel intimations, if it be a fact, 
must be allowed to constitute at least a strong apriori pre- 
sumption against the soundness of the theory which main- 
tains it. For although it is unquestionable that a single 
declaration of holy writ, when clearly and satisfactorily 
made out, is amply sufficient to establish any doctrine as of 
divine authority, yet we believe, as a matter of fact, that it 
will almost if not quite invariably be found, that * by the 
mouth of two or three witnesses ' all the important aver- 
ments of Scripture are authenticated. That the intimation 
generally supposed to be conveyed by the passage which we 
now have in view is intrinsically of sufficient importance 
to require the usual amount of inspired testimony in its be- 
half, will undoubtedly, upon very slight reflection, be con- 
ceded. It must be admitted as very difficult of concep- 
tion, that the Scriptures are elsewhere to be searched in 
vain in quest of proof of an oracle of such transcendent mo- 
ment, as that which should announce the transfer of the 
headship of the mediatorial kingdom, at some future day, 
from the Son to the Father. How comes it that when such 
full disclosures are given in the Prophets and the Psalms 
of the various phases of this glorious kingdom, no intimation 
is to be traced in them of such an abdication, as is here 
supposed to be announced ? We are well aware that theo- 
logians have framed to themselves certain conceptions of 
the plan and the destinies of the scheme of redemption in 
w'hich this view of the apostle's meaning plays a conspicu- 
ous part, but we have yet to learn that all such conceptions 
are not in fact built upon this single passage, which is 
thus made to confirm a doctrine which it is in fact the only 
one to affirm; and how far this comes short of involving a 
petitio principiif we commend to the consideration of all re- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



367 



fleeting minds. If it cannot be shown that this passage 
means what it is usually deemed to teach, then the prevalent 
tenet for the support of which it is adduced, is deprived of all 
solid basis, and must be considered a gratuitous assumption. 
Our present purpose therefore is to submit the passage 
to a strict critical examination, and to endeavor to elicit 
from it its genuine purport. We commence by exhibiting 
the text. 



1 Cor. XV. 24-28. 



GR. 



Eha TO re/,og, oiav nciQCi- 
5ft) rt'iv ^aaileiav toj d^ecp y.al 
TZCiTQi, oiav y.aTUQyr'iari naauv 
ciQi^v ycci naaav i^ovolav y.al 
dvva^iv ' 

/lei yuQ avTov ^aaiXeveiv, 
a/Qig ov av drj ndvreg xovg 
iy&oohg vno zovg ncbag ahrov. 

"E(5yaTog ix^Qog yazaqyu- 
rai 6 {^avaxog. 

ndvra yaQ vnizaiev vno 
tovg TTodag avTov' orav ds 
EiTTrj, OIL ndvTCi vnorhazrai, 
dtjXov, on iyiog tov vnord'^- 
avrog avr(^ zk ndvia. 

Ozav be VTTOzayy avzcp zd 
Tzdvza, zozE yal aviog 6 viog 
VTTOzayrjGezai zco vnozdiavzi 
avzcp zd ndvza, Iva tj 6 dabg 
zd ndpza iv ndaiv. 



ENG. VERS. 

Then cometh the end, when 
he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Fa- 
ther; when he shall have put 
down all rule, and all authority, 
and power. 

For he must reign, till he 
hath put all enemies under his 
feet. 

The last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death. 

For he hath put all things 
under his feet. But when he 
saith all things are put under 
him, it is manifest that he is 
excepted which did put all 
things under him. 

And when all things shall be 
subdued unto him, then shall 
the Son also be subject unto 
him that put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all. 



*'Then cometh the end." We have already adduced a vari- 
ety of considerations going to show, that the common ideas 
suggested by the word ' end ' in scriptural usage rest upon an 
entirely erroneous apprehension of the truth. The true 
sense of the term, as derived from zelieo, to perfect, tojinish, 
is much more nearly allied to perfection or consummation 
than to termination. A river that sinks away in the sands 



36S THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

and suddenly disappears comes to an * end.' But a river that 
merges itself in the waters of the ocean comes to an ' end ' 
in a very different sense. Yet this last is much nearer the 
scriptural import of the word than the former. The chain 
of inspired revelation conducts us to a grand consummation 
in the universal establishment of Christ's kingdom on earth 
in the New Jerusalem economy, and there leaves us. It 
gives us no intimation of any thing like 2i physical winding 
up of the present mundane system. The term o-vvTsksia, in 
the phrase crvvTsksLa tov alwvog^ end of the world, conveys in- 
deed the idea of a close, but it is the close of a dispensation. 
Here, however, the original word is notcrvvisXsLa hutJsXog, prop- 
erly importing ultimate issue, perfect accomplishment, consum- 
mation. The nature of this consummation is not indicated 
by the word itself. In the present case, where we read 
'* Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom," &c., the ' delivery ' is the end ; i. e. the great 
order of events implied in this transfer, whatever it may be, 
is the ultimate scope, object, and purpose, to which all the pre- 
vious counsels of Heaven, as developed in the course of prov- 
idence, tended, thus constituting their en^. The drift of all 
prophecy is this perfected end of the sublime career of events 
pertaining to the fortunes of the kingdom, and resulting in 
its complete triumph over all opposing influences, and its 
ecumenical prevalence among men on the earth. The apos- 
tle therefore is to be understood as saying, that when the 
process of resurrection, which he describes, reaches the 
point alluded to, then comes the end, the grand consumma- 
tion, which God has had all along in view, and which will 
realize the burden of those pregnant prophetic announce- 
ments that have in all ages assured the faith of the faithful 
of the return of a comparatively golden age — of a paradisaic 
era — to the world. We may illustrate our idea by supposing 
the period of the Christian dispensation to constitute sl great 
Gospel week, the preceding days of which merge at length 
into a glorious sahhatism of unlimited duration. It is this 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 369 

sabbatism that constitutes the ^ end ' of which the apostle 
speaks, and which will be seen at once to involve no idea 
oi chronological termination^ and we shall hope to show that it 
implies just as little o^ cessation or change in any of the offi- 
cial functions or relations of the exalted Kinor of the kincrdom. 

*' When he shall have delivered up the kingdom.'' Upon 
the true construction of this clause hinges the genuine 
purport of the whole passage. This we shall attempt to 
determine, after first giving what may perhaps be regarded 
as the prevailing views of Christendom in respect to the 
crisis here announced. We quote from Knapp : 

** From what has been said," he remarks, '^ it appears 
that* the government which Christ as a man administers 
in heaven, will continue only while the present consti- 
tution of the world lasts. At the end of the world, when 
the heavenly state commences, the government which Christ 
administers as a man will cease; so far, at least, as it aims 
to promote the holiness and happiness of men ; since those 
of our race, who labor for this end, will then have attained 
the goal, and will be actually blessed. So Paul says ex- 
pressly, I Cor. 15. 24-28, in entire accordance with the 
universal doctrine of the New Testament respecting the 
kingdom of Christ as man. (?) He is speaking of the 
kingdom of Jesus, or of his office as Messiah, and refers to 
Ps. 110. 1, * Sit on my right hand, until I subject to thee 
all thine enemies.' The phrase, ' to sit on the right hand 
of the Father,' he explains by ^aadeveiVj and comprehends 
under this term all the offices of the Messiah, and the insti- 
tutions which he has established for the good of men, i. e. 
for their holiness and eternal blessedness. These offices 
(his kingdom) will cease at the end of the world, when all 
the opposers of the advancement of his kingdom upon 
earth, and even Death, the last enemy of his followers, will 
be subdued, and when his friends will be introduced by 
himself into the eternal blessedness, to which it is his aim to 
exalt them. Then will his great plan for the happiness of 



370 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

men be completed, and the end of his office as Messiah will 
be attained. Thenceforward the Father will no more make 
use, as before, of the intervention of the Messiah to govern 
and bless men ; for now they will be actually blessed. 
Christ will then lay down his former charge, and give it 
over to the Father, who had intrusted him with it. For we 
cannot expect that the preaching of the gospel will be con- 
tinued in heaven, and that the other institutions of the 
Christian church, which relate only to the present life, will 
be found there in the same way as they exist here upon the 
earth. In the abodes of the blessed, the Father will himself 
reign over the saints with an immediate government, and in 
a manner different from the rule which he causes to be ex- 
ercised over them through Christ, his ambassador, while 
they continue upon the earth." Knapp^s Theology, Art, 
X. § 98, p. 216. 

This is probably the substantial tenet of the Christian 
church on this subject, and notwithstanding the author's 
intimation about its accordance with the " universal doc- 
trine of the New Testament respecting Christ's kingdom as 
a man," we still affirm that it rests solely and exclusively on 
the passage before us, and if it can be shown that this is a 
sense entirely foreign to the scope of the apostle, the evi- 
dence of the doctrine itself at once vanishes out of sight. 
But it is our full persuasion that this can be done, and it is 
what we shall now attempt; assuming distinctly and une- 
quivocally in the outset the position, that the true subject or 
nominative of the verb nagadbi, shall have delivered up, is not 
Christ, nor is the kingdom spoken of, Christ's kingdom ; at 
least, prior to its being delivered up. But before proceed- 
ing to the formal establishment of these two points, we shall 
adduce an array of passages clearly affirming or irresistibly 
implying the perpetuity of Christ's dominion. 

2 Sam. 7. 16, '^ Thine house and thy kingdom shall be 
established for ever before thee : thy throne shall be estab- 
lished for ever.'' This, though originally spoken to David, 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 371 

is obviously to be fulfilled in Christ, as we learn from Luke 
1.32, 33, ''He shall be great, and shall be called the Son 
of the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto him the 
throne of his father David : and he shall reign over the 
house of Jacob ybr ever ; and of his kingdom there shall he 
no end.'' 

Ib. 9. 6, 7, '' Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 
given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; and 
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty 
God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the 
increase of his government and peace there shall he no end ; 
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it and to establish it with judgment and with justice, jTro^w 
henceforth even for ever.' 

Dan. 2. 44, ''And in the days of those kings shall the 
God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never he de- 
stroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, 
but it shall break in pieces and consume all these king- 
doms, and it shall stand for ever." 

Dan. 7. 14, " Then was given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
guages, should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting 
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that 
which shall not he destroyed." 

Heb. 1. 8, "To the Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, 
is for ever and ever." 

Rev. L 5, 6, " Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
priests unto God and his Father, to him he glory and do- 
minion for ever and ever. Amen." The invocation of per- 
petual dominion undoubtedly implies the promise of it. 

Rev. 11. 15, "The kingdoms of this world have become 
the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ ; and he shall 
reign for ever and ever." 

Rev. 5. 13, " Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, 
be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and ww^o the Lamb 



372 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

for ever and ever. ^^ This passage receives a great accession 
of weight in its present relation when viewed in connexion 
with the closing chapters of the book, where we learn that 
after the judgment by him who sat upon the great white 
throne ; when death and hell had delivered up the dead that 
were in them, and they were judged every man according to 
their works, and death and hell, and whoever was not found 
written in the book of life, were cast into the lake of fire, — 
after the formation of a new heavens and new earth, and 
the descent of the New Jerusalem, — after all this we find 
the 'throne of the Lamb ' still subsisting, and the river of 
the water of life proceeding out from under it. But we 
have already seen that this must inevitably be long subse- 
quent to the time of the delivering up of the ' kingdom,' of 
which Paul here speaks. 

Heb. 7. 21, *' The Lord sware and will not repent, 
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.'^ 
But Christ's kingship undoubtedly runs parallel with his 
priesthood. The perpetuity of the one supposes that of the 
other. He is to 'sit a priest upon his throne;^ i. e. com- 
bining the sacerdotal and regal dignity, and that for ever. 

Heb. L 2, "Whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things^ The evidence from this is inferential, but Uill 
conclusive. Heirship denotes perpetuity. An estate re- 
ceived by inheritance does not revert back to the original 
possessor. Christ has received by inheritance, as the Fath- 
er's eldest and only Son, ' the first-born of every creature,' 
' the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power,' and 
of this inherited pre-eminence he can never be conceived as 
voluntarily divesting himself, much less as being deprived 
of it against his will. Wherefore, as heir of the kingdom, 
he holds his prerogative in everlasting fee. 

Now in reference to all the above citations we cannot 
doubt that the kingdom, of which they assure to Jesus the 
ever-during sovereignty, is the mediatorial kingdom. Yet 
this, if any, is the very kingdom which Paul is so generally 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 3T3 

understood to assert that Christ is one day to deliver up to 
the Father. We are not ignorant, indeed, that this view is 
maintained with some kind of salvo, by which a certain class 
of reserved prerogatives is secured to him, which as Knapp 
says, still leave his glory and majesty unimpaired, notwith- 
standing the resignation of the mediatorial sceptre. The 
nice distinctions which theologians are here accustomed to 
make, in order to show how a kingdom can be abdicated and 
its king still retain a kingly character, we must confess our in- 
ability to grasp ; and still more our entire failure to discover, 
from the general tenor or the particular intimations of holy 
writ, any satisfactory grounds on which they rest. As 
Christ can be contemplated only in two characters, as God 
and God-man, so his kingdom or kingship can be viewed 
only in two aspects, as that of God, identical wuth Jehovah, 
and of Messiah. But the kingdom of the Messiah is the me- 
diatorial kingdom, and of that alone is the apostle here speak- 
ing; and if he delivers up this kingdom, then it cannot be 
eternal, as the foregoing extracts unequivocally affirm that 
it is. As to two different departments of this kingdom, of 
which one is to be resigned at the end of the world, and 
the other retained, we find no more evidence of this than 
we do of such an * end of the world' as the theory supposes. 
So far as we are able to compass the scheme of revelation, it 
embraces no such crisis as that which has usually been elicited 
from the words under consideration, and therefore a super- 
structure must be airy that is built upon an airy foundation. 
There must surely be a kingdom of the Messiah as long as 
there is a Messiah to inherit a kingdom ; and when we can 
learn from the clear teachings of Scripture that the Messiah, 
as such, is to merge into the Godhead, then we may believe that 
his kingdom, as such, is to cease. But we conceive that it will 
require a new revelation, to instruct us in any such futurity 
as the absorption of the distinctive person of the Messiah 
into the infinite essence of the Deity, jor whatNeander terms 

17 



374 THE DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. 

the " merging of the mediatorial kingdom into the immedi- 
atorial." 

From this preliminary train of remark we turn to the 
mor^ immediate object which we have in view, viz., the as- 
certainment of the true sense of the apostle's words in re- 
gard to the ' delivering up of the kingdom.' In the solution 
of the problem involved in the language, we adopt as a cri- 
terion Me ^eweraZ scope q/* inspired prophecy as to the des* 
tinies of the kingdom of Christ. This is to be gathered 
mainly from the predictions of Daniel and the Apocalypse. 
From the combined testimony of these oracles we learn that 
there is to be a succession of worldly empires, exercising 
from age to age a despotic and tyrannous rule over the great 
mass of hum^ kind ; till at length, under thefsounding of 
the seventh trumpet, the spiritual and eternal kingdom of 
Jesus supersedes all these monarchies, and assumes to itself 
that dominion which they have so disastrously wielded over 
the subject nations of the earth. The process by which 
this transfer is to be effected is indeed gradual, and may be 
considered as going on during the whole period of the prev- 
alence of Christianity from its earliest origin, but it is not 
fully consummated till the epoch here alluded to arrives. 
Then it is that the ' kingdom,' i. e. the rule, power, sway, 
dominion, which has been so long exercised by these various 
worldly empires, shall be made over to, and merged in the su- 
preme and universal kingdom of Jesus Christ. And this is 
precisely the ' end ' which the apostle here says is to ^ come.' 
It is the same result with that which is shadowed out in the 
vision of the Great Image in Daniel, that was broken to 
pieces, and ground to powder by the stone cut out of the 
mountain — which itself grew to a great mountain, and filled 
the whole earth. It is no other than that kingdom of Christ 
and the saints which displaced and succeeded ihe kingdoms 
of the four Beasts, and which also became universal under 
the whole heavens. Such are clearly the announcements 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 375 

of the Old Testament prophets ; and can we suppose that 
Paul, writing under the guidance of the same Spirit, would 
announce any thing different? 

Here then we have, as we conceive, the true key to the 
explication of his language. The scope of his intimations 
is the farthest possible from declaring that Christ is in any 
sense, or at any time, to ' deliver up ' his kingdom. How 
should he do this, when this very kingdom was given him 
as the reward of his humiliation and obedience unto death 1 
Is his reward to cease as soon as his work is done ? Are 
the saints to be crowned with an eternal reward, and the 
King of Saints with a temporary one? Shall he cease to 
be Lord and King at the very time that every knee begins 
to bow to him, and every tongue confess ? Surely this is 
the most violent of all suppositions. What conclusion, then, 
is possible, but that the * kingdom ' here said to be ^ delivered 
up ' — which, by the way, is more properly rendered * made 
over ' — is the usurped kingdom of his enemies, and not his 
own ? But upon this view it is clear that the nominative to 
the verb Tragado) cannot be Christ, and we proceed to estab- 
lish, by philological evidence, the correctness of the inter- 
pretation that makes this merely an instance of the common 
scriptural idiom in which the verb is used without any 'person- 
al nominative, hut has reference to the purpose of God, else-' 
where expressed in his word. If this point can be compe- 
tently made out, it will give, as the legitimate result, the fol- 
lowing reading of the passage : — ^^ Then cometh the end 
(the grand consummation), when the prophetic announce- 
ments of the Scriptures require the delivering up (the mak- 
ing over) of all adverse dominion into the hands of God, 
or the Godhead (the Father and the Son conjointly), to 
whose unrivalled supremacy every thing is to be made finally 
subject." This brings the oracle into parallelism with Rev. 
11. 15, ^* The kingdoms of this world have become the king- 
doms of our Lord and his Christ.^^ The reason of the ex- 



376 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

press and prominent mention of the Father in this connex- 
ion will soon be explained.'^ 

The construction we have now suggested obviously de- 
pends upon an idiom of speech which it devolves upon us 
clearly to illustrate. It is one of far more frequent occur- 
rence in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, than in the 
Greek of the New. The rule which embraces it is thus stat- 
ed by some philologists: ''Active verbs, especially of the 
third person singular (frequently also in the plural), in 
many cases assume the signification of the passive, where 
no nominative is expressed." Examples of this usage are 
innumerable. The following may serve as specimens : 

Gen. 16. 14, '' Wherefore the well was called (2j<';j5, one 
called) Beer-lahai-roi." 

Ex. 10. 21, '* That there may be darkness over the land 
of Egypt, even darkness which may he felt (^^^'i, and one 
may feel). ^' 

1 Sam. 23. 22, '' For it is told me (^b 153&<, one has told 

me) that he dealeth very subtilly." 

Neh. 2. 7, ** If it please the king, let letters be given me 
(Mb Jisir'i^ let them give me)J' 

Hos.lO. 2, '' Their heart is divided (phr:, one has divided).' ' 



* It is perhaps deserving of consideration whether the inditing Spirit, in 
this connexion, had not a latent reference to Is. 9. 6, " His name shall be 
called — The mighty God, the everlasting Father," ^hich is a well known 
designation of Christ as the Father of the future age, i. e. the head of the 
Messianic dispensation. We do not, however, build our interpretation 
upon this sense. We merely suggest it as worthy of consideration. Our 
proposed construction of the passage would undoubtedly lead us, on a 
priori grounds, to look rather for a specific mention of the Son than of the 
Father ; bnt we shrink from forcing a sense upon any word of Scripture. 
" Fit via vi," is not the motto we would have to characterize our exposi- 
tions ; and in the present case we believe a sufficient reason may be 
assigned for the phraseology which the apostle employs. 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 377 

Job 3. 20, " Wherefore is light given (')n'^, does one give) 
to him that is in misery." 

Job 18. 15, '^ Brimstone shall he scattered {pS^^^ one 
shall scatter) upon his habitation." 

A similar phraseology is common both in the Septua- 
gint and the Greek Testament, and in the latter particularly 
where the writer introduces quotations from other Scrip- 
tures, as will be seen in several of the following instances : 

Luke 12. 20, '' Thou fool, this night shall thy soul he 
required [ananomcv, shall they require) of thee." 

Heb. 1.7, ^' And of the angels he saith [Xs/sl, i. e. the 
Scripture saith y or, it is said). Who maketh his angels spir- 
its," &c. 

Heb. 4. 4, '^ For he spake {uqti^s, i. e. the Scri]ptures spalce^ 
or, it is spoken) in a certain place." 

Heb. 7. 17, '*For he testijieth {fxccgTvgsl/i. e. it is testiJied)J* 

1 Cor. 15. 27, '' But when he saith {sVnr]^ i. e. when it is 
said hy the Scriptures) all things are put under him," &:-c. 

The above instances will be sufficient to confirm our 
proposed rendering : *^ Then cometh the end, when by the 
announced purpose of God in the Scriptures, the Kingdom 
or Kingship, hitherto usurped by the rulers of this world, is 
made over to its rightful Divine Proprietor." This, we are sat- 
isfied, is the true purport of the apostle's language, from whose 
intention nothing is farther than to indicate any kind of re- 
linquishment on the part of Christ of any form of his regal 
prerogative ; for this we have seen he holds by an indefeasi- 
ble tenure. 

It is moreover indubitable that the sense ascribed to 
naqado}^ deliver up, in the established version, is entirely un- 
warranted by the current usage of the New Testament wri- 
ters. Not a single instance can be adduced where the verb 
has the meaning of handing or resigning hack, returning, 
unless it be John 19. 30, *' He gave up the ghost (Tiagsdooxs to 
nvEvixa),^' and this is by no means decisive, as it may there 
be understood in the general sense of making over, transfer- 



378 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

ring, which obtains elsewhere throughout the whole New 
Testament without a single exception. As this is a point 
entirely beyond question, we are entitled to give it peculiar 
prominence in this discussion. The true interpretation of a 
text may often depend upon the precise shade of meaning to 
be attached to a word in a particular context, and in determin- 
ing this, the prevailing usus loquendi must necessarily be our 
main guide. If this is departed from, we are at liberty to de- 
mand why, and on what authority. In the present case it 
does not properly devolve on us to show that TiagadM means 
to make over, but on an opponent to show that it means any 
thing else. The matter is reduced within a short compass 
by the simple requisition to have produced from the New 
Testament writers a solitary instance that unequivocally con- 
firms any other rendering. 

** When he shall have put down all rule, and all author- 
ity, and power.'' The verb aaTagyrjas, shall have put doicn, 
we here again interpret on the same principle with the fore- 
going, as not referring to any ^personal nominative, but to the 
general divine purpose, as announced in the Scriptures. 
Viewed in this light, the clause varies but little in import 
from the preceding ; for when all opposing rule and authority 
is put down, the kingdom becomes of course, or ipso facto, 
made over to God. Is does not in strictness denote a pro- 
cess actually accomplished previous to the delivering over 
of the kingdom, but the one proceeds pari passu with the 
other. Just as much of dominion as is taken away from the 
usurping power, is transferred to him ' whose right it is.' 
The allusion is obviously to the 110th Psalm, v. 1, *' The 
Lord said unto myLord,Sit thou atmyrighthand, until I^make 
thine enemies thy footstool." This passage the apostle has 
constantly in view throughout, and it forms in fact the true 
clew to the entire course of his reasoning. This will be 
evident from what follows. 

'^ For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under 
his feet." The ground of this necessity is the express declara- 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 379 

tion quoted above from the inspired Psalmist, and which 
must be fulfilled. Christ, according to the oracle, must con- 
tinue to occupy the seat assigned him during all the peri- 
od in which this process of subjugation is going on ; but 
no inference is more unfounded than that when that period 
is elapsed he ceases to retain the supremacy with which he 
was before invested. This idea is undoubtedly built upon 
an apprehended sense of the word 'until,' which we think may 
be shown tobe utterly unfounded. We have already given evi- 
dence to this effect in relation to the use of the term in Acts 
3. 21, ** Until the times of restitution of all things," and we 
now proceed by a further display of the usus loquendi to con- 
firm our present interpretation. The position which we 
shall aim to establish in regard to the use of the word in a 
great multitude of instances is, that while it affirms the con- 
tinuance of something during a certain specified period, it 
does not necessarily deni/ the continuance of it when the 
period is expired ; and so conversely, when it denies the 
continuance of any thing during a given period it does not 
necessarily affirm the continuance of it subsequently to its 
close. As the Greek follows the Hebrew usage in this par- 
ticular, we begin with illustrations from the latter. The im- 
portance of the point in the interpretation of prophecy will 
justify a copious list of citations. 

Gen. 28. 15, God says to Jacob, '^ I will not leave thee, 
until (i^-fw? ) I have done that which I have spoken to 
thee of^It surely does not follow that he would leave him 
then. 

1 Sam. 15. 35, '^ Samuel came no more until ("t^-^W) 
the day of his death." Of course he never came again. 

2 Sam. 6. 23, '' Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, 
had no child unto ("i^-IW) the day of her death." 

Ps. 112. 8, ''His heart is established, he shallnot^be afraid, 
until ('^^2J< ^^-ecog) he see his desire upon his enemies." 

Is. 22. 14, " Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from 
you till (l^-ecog) ye die." 



380 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Is. 42. 4, '' He shall not fail nor be discoaraged, till 
(l^-£(wg) he have set judgment in the earth.'* 

Is. 46. 4, " Even to ("i?-IW) your old age I am he.'' 

Passing on to the New Testament we have the following : 

Mat. 1. 25, "And knew her not till (emgov) she had 
brought forth her first-born son." This affirms nothing in 
relation to the time subsequent. 

Mat. 5. 19, *' Till (IW) heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be ful- 
filled." Does this imply that any part of the law shall fail, 
even supposing heaven and earth are to pass away ? 

Mat. 28. 20, " Lo, I am with you always, even unto 
(ecog) the end of the world." Would he cease to be with 
them then ? 

Rom. 5. 13, '* Until (H/gi) the law, sin was in the world.'* 
It surely did not leave the world when the law came. 

1 Tim. 4. 13, *^ Till (lojg) I come, give attendance to 
reading." Paul's coming would scarcely be considered as a 
discharge of Timothy from the duty of reading. 

The usage in these cases is certainly beyond question, and 
equally so, in our opinion, is the very important instance pre- 
viously alluded to Rev. 20. 5, " The rest of the dead lived 
not until (a/gi) the thousand years were finished." This con- 
veys no implication that they did live when that period 
was accomplished. Shall we not then consider our in- 
terpretation of the present passages as fully established — an 
interpretation which maintains the unceasing, uninterrupted 
mediatorial reign of Christ? 

But to proceed : " The last enemy that shall be de- 
stroyed is death." How Death is to be destroyed in con- 
junction with Hades, has already been considered, and we 
doubt not, from the connexion, that ' Death ' is here to be 
understood in precisely the same sense — not as synonymous 
with mortality in the abstract, but with premature mortality. 
For as we have already seen that this making over the king- 
dom occurs at the commencement of the great sabbatical 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 381 

period of the world, during whichlthe successive genera- 
tions of men are to continue, we see no possibility of under- 
standing it of the actual abolition of death, especially when 
Isaiah, in describing the same period, expressly affirms that 
"the child shall die an hundred years old.'' The de- 
struction of death, therefore, is its destruction as an enemy, 
as a curse. It is not that men will then cease to die, 
and pass into the spiritual world, the ultimate sphere of all 
human existence : but death, as the apostle says in this very 
context, will then be deprived of his sting, and ihe grave of 
its victory. It will then become to the great mass of men a 
mere gentle metamorphosis, or, more properly, a virtual 
translation from the mundane to the celestial mansions. 
But without attempting the solution of enigmas to which we 
may not at present be fully competent, we deem it sufficient 
to plant ourselves, in our main result, upon the indubitable 
identity of the destruction of Death in the present passage, 
and the destruction of Death and Hades in Rev. 20. 14, 
and 22. 4. But that event we have shown to be a charac- 
teristic feature of the New Jerusalem state, announced by 
the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and to be continued 
through an indefinite period among men in the flesh ; and 
consequently the event described by Paul m.ust be referred 
to the same era. On any other construction, it is impossible 
to harmonize the discrepancies that inevitably arise in the 
system of Eschatology. 

'' For he hath put all things under his feet." The 
same idiom with that above mentioned is here continued. 
The original vjioxalE is impersonal, having for its true nomi- 
native the expressed purpose or decree of Jehovah, as 
embodied in the Scriptures. ' He hath put all things ' is 
grammatically tantamount to ' all things are put,' i. e., by 
the declared tenor of the divine counsels. The reference is 
again to the 110th Psalm. 

*' But when he saith all things are put under him." Still 
another instance of the same usage, as already' remarked. 

17* 



382 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

' He saith' (s^tt?;), is the same as ' it is said/ i, e., by the 
Scriptures. If Christ is the nominative to nagada, we do 
not see but Christ must be nominative also to all the 
verbs that follow, as there is no note of a change of per- 
sons. But this will introduce the utmost confusion into the 
train of the argument. 

*' It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all 
things under him.'' This is offered by way of reply to a 
tacit objection. If Christ is to be invested with this para- 
mount and plenipotentiary dignity, will it not follow that his 
supremacy is so transcendent as to eclipse that of the 
Father? 'By no means,' says the apostle, 'for in the na- 
ture of the case it must be evident, that he who has thus 
decretively st^jected all things to the Son must be economi- 
cally greater than the Son. He cannot have included him- 
self among the things subjected. Then 'it is manifest that 
he is excepted.' If we were to suppose that Pharaoh had 
announced the determination to put every thing in Egypt into 
subjection to Joseph, and to bring about the issue by a gradual 
process, would any one infer that Pharaoh had purposed to 
subject himself also? The cases are entirely parallel. 

" And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then 
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that 
put all things under him (Christ), that God may be all in 
all." This is a conclusion growing directly out of the pur- 
port, as now explained, of the preceding verse. If it be 
true that it is the Father who has thus, by his supreme 
decree, put all things in subjection to Christ, it is of course 
to be presumed that he will still continue to retain pre- 
eminence, and that after, juwSt as before the execution of the 
decree, the Son will hold the same rank of economical sub- 
jection to the Father. A delegated authority necessarily 
implies a supremacy to him who conferred it. This is un- 
doubtedly the true force of the original, tots yial, then also, — 
i. e., then, just as now — which the rendering of the common 
translation entirely fails correctly to represent. Every one 



THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 383 

can perceive that the expression — '' Then shall the Son 
also himself be subject" — conveys a wholly different idea 
from '^ Then also shall the Son himself be subject." In 
the one case the force of the word * also' falls upon ' then/ 
in the other upon * Son.' The former we conceive beyond 
question to be the genuine sense. The apostle's words, so 
far from indicating any change in the official relations of 
Christ as Mediator, have it for their express object to affirm 
directly the reverse. As Christ, in the. great mediatorial 
scheme, now holds a place inferior to the Father, so, not- 
withstanding all the grandeur and glory that is predicted to 
accrue to him from the final subjection of his enemies, he is 
still ordained to occupy that subordinate station. His con- 
quests and his crowns still leave him second on the throne. 
It has indeed been suggested by Storr and others, that 
the future vTroTayrjasTon, shall be subject, is to be understood 
not as a future of time, but merely as a logical future, de- 
noting an inference. In this case the adverbs orav and tots 
assume another character, as may be seen from the resulting 
translation; — ^^ Since {oxav), therefore, all things have been 
(by the divine decree) put under him, it will follow (t('t«) that 
the Son himself is, or is to be, subject to him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all in all." As, however, 
the former rendering yields a clear and consistent sense, and 
requires no departure from the common acceptation of the 
terms, we give it an unhesitating preference.* 



* '' As the Father was excepted when all things were put under the 
Son, so also shall he be excepted when all things are subdued unto him. It 
appears, then, that this passage does not even intimate, that there will ever 
be a termination of Christ's kingdom, or that he will ever"*deliver up his 
kingdom to the Father. The dominion shall indeed be rescued from his 
enemies, and restored to the Godhead, but not in any such sense, but that 
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and that of his kingdom there 
shall be no end" Vanvalkenburg's Essay on " the Duration of ChrisVs 
Kingdom:' Bill. Repos. Vol. IL No. IV. Second Series, p. 444. 



384 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The view now presented of the apostle's meaning cer- 
tainly has the advantage of exhibiting the passage in entire 
harmony with the general scope of the prophetic Scriptures 
relative to the duration and destinies of our Lord's media- 
torial kingdom. That that kingdom is again and again de- 
clared to be eternal, there cannot be a shadow of doubt. 
Equally clear, we think, it is that nothing can be fairly elicit- 
ed from the text before us implying any kind of surrender 
or abdication of that supremacy with which, in the economy 
of redemption, he is invested. The simple establishment of 
the position that nadagM is not to be referred to Christ as 
its nominative, and that the true import of the term is not 
* delivering up,' or ' delivering back,' but ' making or deliv- 
ering over,' puts at once a new complexion upon the pas- 
sage, and forbids its being brought in support of the doc- 
trine for which it is pleaded, viz., that at some grand crisis 
of the universe Christ is, in some way, to lay down that 
mediatorial office which he assumed for the accomplishment 
of an object which is brought to a final completion. We do 
not hesitate, on the other hand, to maintain that no such idea 
falls within the compass of revelation. So far as we are 
conducted by the light of prophecy into the unbounded 
future, we find the mediatorial kingdom still going on ; and 
although it be true that the actual subjugation of all its 
enemies will necessarily present it under somewhat of a dif- 
ferent phasis, subsequent to that event, yet it still leaves the 
point of the Messiah's supremacy wholly unaffected ; and the 
entire drift of the apostle's argument in the present context 
is to show how that supremacy may consist with the asserted 
economical subjection, which necessarily grows out of the 
relation subsisting between the Father and the Son in the 
polity of the great redemption-scheme. 

It is evident, moreover, that the passage thus explained 
contains nothing in derogation of the essential and immuta- 
ble Deity of the Son. There is nothing in the writer^s 
scope which touches the point of the constitution of the 



CONCLUSION. 385 

Saviour's person. Whatever that is now^ such is it for ever 
to be, as far as any thing is taught on the subject in the 
words under consideration. Not a particle of evidence can 
be elicited from the present paragraph that goes in any mea- 
sure to vacate the irrefragable testimony drawn from other 
sources in support of the sublime truth, that our blessed Lord 
unites in himself God and man in one person : a union in 
virtue of which he is to be adored, as well as served, as 
* King of kings and Lord of lords,' as ' God over all, blessed 
for ever.' 



CHAPTER XIII. 
Conclusion, 



We have now accomplished the task which, in the out- 
set, we had proposed to ourselves. It would be easy, indeed, 
to extend the discussion, and to bring our subject into con- 
nexion with the various topics with which it stands related 
in the general system of revealed truth. But this would 
swell our volume to undue dimensions, and we have already 
travelled over the ground which we had originally marked 
out as the limits of the present treatise. In the conduct of 
the argument it has been our object to put the reader fully 
in possession of the grounds on which our conclusions rest. 
If these grounds are valid, the conclusions must stand of 
course. The point that will probably be regarded as most 
liable to exception, is the making our rational deductions 
the criterion of truth in regard to the meaning of the 
inspired word, on a theme of such moment as the mode 
of our future existence. Multitudes of readers who are 
ready to admit the force of the objections urged in detail 
against the popular views of the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion, will still, doubtless, fail to be convinced by them, under 
the prevailing impression that the Divine Omnipotence is fully 



386 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 



competent to their solution, and that human reason has noth- 
ing to do with the subject, except implicitly to believe that 
every thing will be accomplished precisely as the letter of the 
word declares. We should be sorry to believe that we 
cherished any less exalted ideas of the Omnipotence of Je- 
hovah than the most devout of our readers ; but we may be 
permitted to suggest, that the charge of denying or under- 
rating the Divine Omnipotence, in its relations to the subject 
before us, cannot be fairly sustained without an explicit defi- 
nition of the precise effect to which we are conceived to 
pronounce Omnipotence incompetent. Here is the real 
point of the difficulty. We are at full liberty to demand 
what is the exact doctrine to be believed, and the denial of 
which involves a virtual denial of Omnipotence in that rela- 
tion. In other w^ords, what is the precise thing which Om- 
nipotence is to be considered as pledged to perform, in 
accomplishing the resurrection of the dead ? Until this is 
defined, we see not how our positions are justly open to the 
imputation in question. If it is deemed that the Scriptures 
unequivocally assert the future resuscitation of the identical 
bodies which we lay down at death, then we are certainly 
authorized to demand how that identity is to be reconciled 
with the admitted fact of a perpettualj change in the con- 
stituent particles during life, and a complete dissipation of 
them after death. If the true doctrine of the resurrection 
is the doctrine of the reconstruction of the original fabric 
of the body, then indeed the denial of this would be a direct 
denial of the Omnipotence of God, which can with infinite 
ease restore at once to its integrity any decomposed or dis- 
sipated substance in the universe. But this we do not un- 
derstand to be the asserted doctrine of the Scriptures. We 
have not learned that it is any where held that the tenet of 
revelation requires the supposition that all the materials 
which may at any time have entered into the composition of 
our bodies are to be re-gathered and re-formed into the 
future structure. Consequently there can be no reflection 



CONCLUSION. 387 

upon Omnipotence in denying that it accomplishes what it 
is not asserted to accomplish. 

Again, is it affirmed that the true doctrine on the subject 
before us is, that a certain portion only of the materiel 
of the present body — sufficient to denominate it the same — 
passes into the future resurrection-body, and thus constitutes 
that glorious structure?* On this ground our faculties are 
at once confounded and overwhelmed. We would fain 
know how much and what part of the old body is necessary 
to constitute it the same with the new one, and whether in 
making the transition any reference is had to the laws of 
life acting in either? Has the transfer any relation what- 
ever to the vital principle ? When it is said of a seed, that 
" God giveth it a body as it pleaseth him,'^ we at once direct 
our thoughts to that law of organical development by which 
the vital power of a plant works for itself a new form, without 

* A specimen of the exceedingly loose and fallacious logic which is 
often given forth on the subject is to be seen in the following extract from 
Dr. Nelson's popular, and in the main valuable, work on Infidelity. 

" God has not told us how much of our present body goes into the com- 
position of the new, on the morning of the resurrection. The figure used 
as an illustration by the inspired writer, to make his instructions plain on 
this subject, is the grain which is sown in the earth, decays, and out of 
which springs the new grain. It is perhaps a twentieth, or thirtieth part 
of a grain of wheat, which springs up and forms a part of the new grain ; 
the rest rots and stays in the ground. It is not needed in the new body 
which God gives the wheat, and is not called forth again. Whether it 
will be a tenth, a twentieth, or an hundredth part of our present body, 
which is to enter into the formation of the new, God has not chosen to tell 
us, and we need not care, for the work will be well done, and we shall 
know enough after a time." 

Now " what does this arguing reprove 1" The real point to be made 
out is, that a certain portion of the former substance, transferred to the 
latter, constitutes the resulting body the same with the preceding. This 
we of course admit in the case of the seed, provided the organific principle 
operating in the germ be recognized ; and we admit, too, that on this sup- 
position the quantity of the matter transferred is a circumstance wholly 
immaterial. The sameness predicted of the two bodies is entirely de- 
pendent on the continuous action of the vital power in each. But take 



388 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

any change of its essential identity ; for it is in the life that 
the identity is seated. But suppose the seed to be entirely 
decomposed, germ and all, into the dust of the earth, and a 
blade of grass to be subsequently produced by the divine 
power, into which some part of that dust is introduced, on 
what grounds of logical or philosophical accuracy coulS we 
predicate identity of the former and the latter body 1 It is 
obvious that Omnipotence is perfectly competent to form 
the blade, but the requisition made upon it, in reference to 
our present point, is not to accomplish a creation^ but to 
establish a relation^ which is quite a different thing. We 
perceive the difficulty in the case supposed, but how is this 
difficulty enhanced when we advance another step, and im- 
agine the particles of the seed, after its decomposition, to find 
their way, every one of them, into the structure of other seeds, 
each of which is also destined in its turn to be the subject of 
reproduction in a vegetable form ! Here is evidently a prob- 
lem to be solved, in reference to which an appeal to Omnipo- 
tence affords our minds no relief, assuming that each of the 
other seeds shall be raised and metamorphosed into vegeta- 
ble bodies that may even be justly denominated the same. 
How is this primary individual seed to be thus reproduced 

away this element from the supposition, and the whole matter assumes at 
once a totally different aspect. In this case the infusion of an indetermi- 
nate portion of the original material does no if constitute it the same body, 
and#if any one affirms identity of the two bodies, he is hound to show on 
what principle he does it, and how much of the former is necessary to 
make the latter the same with the former. How much of the Tabernacle 
of Moses must have^been conveyed into the Temple of Solomon to make 
the two structures the same ? But suppose the Ark of the Covenant to 
have been the inwrapped germ of the former, and to have possessed a 
plastic power of elaborating to itself a Temple -fabric, and there would be 
no room for proposing this question. Who ever thinks of asking how much 
of the substance of the caterpillar must necessarily pass into the butterfly in 
order to constitute it essentially the same creature ? Yet who would not 
think of asking how much of the dust of che caterpillar would'be necessary 
for the new creation of a butterfly, which should be the *amc with its pre- 
decessor 1 



CONCLUSION. 389 

when it has lost itself — when not a particle of it remains un- 
appropriated ? 

The application of all this to the resurrection of the hu- 
man body is sufficiently obvious. We see from it the precise 
point on which the charge of derogation from the divine Om- 
nipotence, brought against our theory, must rest if it rests 
any where. It is not the denial of the power of Jehovah to 
work any conceivable fact, but the denial of his power to 
establish an inconceivable relation. Men may loosely affirm 
that they believe a doctrine involving such an incredible as- 
sumption, and imagine, at the same time, that they a.ie hon- 
oring the Divine Omnipotence by ascribing to it a compe- 
tency to produce the asserted result, but no sooner is the 
truth looked fully in the face than the delusion vanishes at 
once. They do not believe it, because they cannot. The 
constitution of the human mind utterly forbids it. Can the In- 
finite Wisdom regard that as honorary to his attributes which 
involves the necessity of doing the utmost violence to the dic- 
tates of that intelligence which he has implanted within us? 

Under these circumstances are there no duties devolving 
on the friends of revelation, on the score of vindicating its 
doctrines from the charge of being utterly at war with the 
clearest dictates of reason and philosophy ? Is all inquiry 
imperatively foreclosed as to the intrinsic character of the 
facts announced in the inspired page ? But if permitted to in- 
quire, are we not at liberty to conclude ? And if our conclu- 
sions are authoritative to our own minds, can we set them 
aside when we come to deal with the letter of holy writ? 
Is not the light of human reason as truly kindled by the Spirit 
of God as the light of divine revelation ? Is there the high- 
est criminality in going counter to the one, and none in going 
counter to the other? If so, why? — on what grounds? 

On the whole, we are unable to perceive that the princi- 
ple is not a sound one which makes the ascertained truth of 
physical and phsychical science the criterion by which to 
judge of the import of revealed truth falling within the same 
department. If this principle be not admitted, what is the 



390 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

alternative ? Does it not follow that we can be more certain 
of the meaning of the Spirit as teaching doctrines contrary 
to our deductions, than we can of the truth of these deductions 
themselves ? We have endeavored to show, for example, 
that the physiological fact of the constant change which our 
bodies are undergoing is irreconcilably at war with the tenet 
of the resurrection of our bodies. Now of this fact of phys- 
iology we do not hesitate to declare ourselves absolutely cer- 
tain. Can we, then, be absolutely certain that we have at- 
tained the true mind of the Spirit, when we ascribe to it a 
sense which virtually nullifies the previous certainty ? This 
is a question, and a very important question, which is to be 
settled in the matter of biblical interpretation. If the assert- 
ed fact and the asserted sense, in the present case, can stand 
together without mutual conflict, then our argument is so far 
invalid. For ourselves we do not see that they can. If 
others do, they will at least lay one mind under obligations 
not easily cancelled, by expounding the manner in which the 
harmony is to be demonstrated. 

It will have been seen that our own exposition of the 
Scriptural testimony to the doctrine of the resurrection goes 
on the principle of its being so constructed as to yield, with- 
out violence, an import accordant with what we have en- 
deavored to evince to be the absolute truth on the subject. 
We are prepared, indeed, to have our exegesis submitted to 
a very rigid ordeal, but we have not been able as yet to hy- 
pothecate to ourselves the mode in which the process or the 
results are to be set aside. Commencing with the original 
term * Anastasis,^ we have aimed to evince that, though render- 
ed into English by reswrrec^/o/z, i. e. rising again, it does not 
in this relation strictly imply the resum'ption of a decomposed 
bodily fabric nor the restoration of a suspended bodily life.^ 
It is merely a term denoting the entrance upon a new sphere 

* The ensuing extract from the able work of Mr. Noble {Appealy p, 
69), so often quoted before, presents this argument in a very strong and 
convincing light. 

" Even supposing the proper idea of the original word to be, to rise 



CONCLUSION. 391 

of existence, which, as we are assured of its reality, so we 
may reasonably look for some term to express it. So far, then, 
as concerns the leading word by which the doctrine is indi- 
cated, it goes decidedly to the support of our grand conclu- 
sion ; and this is again strongly confirmed by the fact, that 
the dominant usage of the New Testament is not '^ resurrec- 
tion of the body,'' but '^ resurrection of the dead." With this 
ruling sense of the term we have seen that the various passa- 
ges examined in detail in the main easily agree, admitting, 
without violence, the construction demanded by the theory. 
The truth or the fallacy of the theory becomes, therefore, in 

again; it would not follow that he who rises again enters a second time 
into his material body, and so rises again, any more than that he who is 
horn again enters a second time into his mother's womb, and so is born 
again. If to he horn again (and, in the original, again is here expressed 
by a separate adverb), is to enter into a new state, in which the man has 
never been before, to rise again must also be to enter into a new state 
in which the man has never been before. The particle again, then, 
does not, in thjs-Case, imply a returning back to the same state as has 
been previously experienced, but an advancing forward to a new state 
having a certain analogy to one that has been previously experienced ; 
and we cannot suppose that the resurrection is a repetition of bodily life, 
without concluding, with Nicodemus, that regeneration is a repetition of 
bodily birth. How much is it to be lamented that Nicodemus should 
have so many disciples ; that many should be so prone, like him, to turn 
their minds from spirit to matter, and carnalize the instructions of the 
Lord Jesus Christ! For certainly, if it may be said without offence, 
the idea that, in order to our rising again, we are to return again to 
the body of flesh, is the exact counterpart of the notion, that in order to 
our being born again, we are to return again to the mother's womb. 
The one is just as good an interpretation of the Lord's instructions as the 
other. Our existence as embryos in the womb is necessary to prepare us 
for birth into the world ; and birth into the world is necessary to prepare 
us for birth into eternity ; and to suppose that the spirit after having 
dwelt for ages in its own world is to return again to the body which it 
left in this, is just as consonant with the Lord's instructions, as it would 
be to suppose, that the man is to be re-invested with the integuments 
of the foetus, and to return to his mother's womb, not even for the purpose 
of being bom again, but of living the life of a foetus forever." 



392 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

great measure a question o^ pure 'philology , and by the verdict 
which a fair and enlightened criticism renders on the subject, 
it must stand or fall. That theology should be indifferent to 
the issue of this question, we know not how to conceive. 

There is indeed one point of our reasonings on which the 
evidence is attended with peculiar difficulty, arising from 
our inevitable ignorance of the mysterious principle o^ life. 
We have aimed to demonstrate that the resurrection cannot 
be viewed apart from the operation of the vital principle — 
that our future life is in fact but a continuation of our pres- 
ent life, developing itself in a new sphere and under new 
conditions. It would doubtless seem, upon this view, that 
as the wicked equally with the righteous possess the princi- 
ple of life, physically considered, so they, equally with the 
righteous, must be the subjects of resurrection, and must en- 
ter upon the eternal sphere of existence in spiritual bodies. 
How is it then that such a resurrection is not predicated of 
them ? — that they are not said to live ? — that on the con- 
trary they are, expressly or constructively, said to abide in 
death ? As the evidence of the fact is decisive, we might 
properly content ourselves with this, waiving all attempts at 
solution in a matter which might justly be supposed to baffle 
our utmost powers of comprehension. But we may venture 
to suggest the probability that there is a more intimate rela- 
tion between the principle of spiritual and physical life, 
when both are rightly understood, than the current phi- 
losophy of the world has ever imagined. Certain, at any rate, 
it is that there is such a thing as spiritual death, independent 
of that death which is indicated and expressed by the disso- 
lution of the body, or rather the dissolution of the soul and 
the body. The unregenerate man is morally dead in the 
present life, and the mere circumstance of his throwing ofFthe 
mortal investment does not necessarily affect this essential 
condition of his being. If he may properly be denominated 
dead while living a physical life in the body, it is not easy to 
see why the same language may not be employed as charac- 



CONCLUSION. 393 

teristic of his state when passed beyond the bourne of time, 
and made an inhabitant of the world unseen. Spiritual life, on 
the other hand, must be the converse of this spiritual death, 
and the true idea of it cannot be separated from that of love^ 
joy, happiness ; while its opposite must involve the conception 
of miseri/ and anguish. ^'It is not all of life to live" becomes, 
on this view, something more than a mere poetical senti- 
ment ; it conveys a profound philosophical truth, striking 
down to the central depth of our being. The Scriptural 
idea of Zz/e, therefore, in its highest and truest import, con- 
nects itself directly and indissolubly with the action of that 
principle of the Divine which becomes benignly operative in 
the work of regeneration ; and resurrection is but the consum- 
mated sequence of regeneration The relation, then, of the 
inner and essential element of their being to the spiritual 
bodies of the wicked in another world, is substantially the 
same with the relation of that element to their physical bodies 
in the present world. Though endowed with an animal life 
here on earth, yet they are spiritually dead. So, hereafter, 
though possessed of spiritual, in contradistinction from gross 
material tenements, yet lacking that interior, divine vitality, 
which makes the saints partakers of the life and beatitude of 
God himself, they are, by an eminence of infelicity, dead; 
and this fact, like many others, rightly appreciated, converts 
what is usually termed the figurative diction of the Scrip- 
tures into the language of literal verity. 

From the previous train of remark it is but a natural 
transition to pass to the inference, that the moral character 
of the individual may exert a controlling and moulding influ- 
ence upon the constitution of that future body, through which 
it shall manifest itself; and this brings us to a point of our dis- 
cussion where the speculative merges into the practical, and 
the whole subject rises upon us with an overwhelming bur- 
den of interest. Even in our present state — in our gross 
corporeal fabrics — we see the most marked effects produced 
by the actings of the inward spirit upon the outward organi- 



394 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

zation. Do we not often in the countenance of one admire 
the sweetness of the seraph, and in another shudder at the 
rage of a fiend ? What an eloquent impress is stamped upon 
the features by the moods^of the soul ! And were the moods — 
which are often transient — but permanent ; could they con- 
tinue in unabated intensity ; what a fixed and speaking char- 
acter would it impart to the whole outer man ! 

The relation of the spiritual element in our nature to 
the nervous part of our corporeal system, though enveloped 
in mystery, is too obvious as a fact to be overlooked in this 
connexion. Who is ignorant of the eflfects of either joy or 
grief — of remorse or recovered peace — on that most exquisite 
part of the exquisite machinery of our frame ? Go to our 
hospitals and insane retreats, where the effects of diseased 
mental action are so conspicuous, and see how the nervous 
system is all shattered to pieces, and what ineflfable distress 
is produced by its reaction on the mind ! Bat turn, on the 
other hand, to the effect of high and pure religious enjoy- 
ment. Look at the new rejoicing hoper in the mercies of the 
Gospel. How is his body, as well as his soul, often strung 
up to a buoyancy, a holy exhilaration, a kind of rapturous and 
sacred glee, which scarcely permits him to retain his foothold 
on the earth ! This is to be mediately referred to the genial 
action of the nervous si/ stem, whose mysterious strings dis- 
course celestial music, or grate the .discords of despair, ac- 
cording to the prevailing state of that latent inner power 
which plays upon them. 

We see, then, nothing to forbid, but much to favor the 
idea, that a good man, whose heart is renewed and sancti- 
fied — whose spirit is serene — whose affections are heavenly 
— whose soul is prompted by angelic aspirations — shall, by 
the very law of his nature, possess hereafter a body so 
related to this blissful state of the inner man, that it shall 
necessarily become an inlet to pleasurable sensations ; while, 
on the other hand, on the same principle, the case shall be 
directly the reverse with those whose characters are the 



CONCLUSION. 395 

reverse. Their bodies may become a perpetual source of 
corroding pain and of an anguish that knows no mitigation. 
We shrink, of course, from dwelling on this part of our 
theme ; but entire justice to the subject seems to demand 
the intimation of the probability, that the spiritual tene- 
ments of wicked men will be moulded by their inward 
character, and that a soul rent and torn by the actings of 
evil, shall convert into a ministry of woe, and an object of 
horror, the corporeal vehicle in which it lives, and through 
which it acts. So far as the bare point of existence is con- 
cerned, it is clear that the good and the bad stand upon the 
same footing; and if the one class emerges into that spirit- 
ual state in a glorious and beatified body, and the other with 
a body of an opposite nature, we do not see but it must be 
the moral character which makes the difference. In this 
case it might be difficult to show that there was any intrin- 
sic necessity for the local separation of the two classes, pro- 
vided locality can be affirmed at all of that state ? They 
certainly are not separated, except by character, in the pre- 
sent world ; and who shall say that one large ingredient in 
the cup of bitterness in another world, may not be the being 
doomed to witness, in closest proximity, a bliss which, from 
moral incapacity, they are unable to taste? Though en- 
circled by the subjects and the sources of a felicity which 
neither the tongues of mortals nor immortals can adequately 
describe, yet they may still be compelled to exclaim, with 
Milton's despairing Spirit, in view of their ^ Paradise Lost,' 
— '^ Which, way I turn is hell ; myself am hell !" 

And here may we not pause in an attitude of heedful re- 
gard to the tones of solemn admonition which are sounded up 
from the depths of our subject into the ears of our spirits ? 
The suggestion certainly comes upon us with a plentitude 
of serious interest, that our future condition in the world be- 
fore us depends not so much upon arbitrary allotment as 
upon constitutional law. It is not, upon the view which 
we have taken, the mere righteous will of Jehovah which 



396 THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

awards the retributions of eternity. These grow necessarily 
out of the previous moral attributes of the soul. Destiny is 
determined by character, and character is untouched by 
death. Be it engraven, then, on the tablets of our hearts, 
as ' with the pen of a diamond in the rock and lead for ever,' 
that by necessary consequence — by immutable law — we 
MUST BE GOOD — evangelically good — in order to be happy. 
We may not — we cannot with impunity — waive the claims 
of the Gospel of grace. The sanctions of that claim are 
inlaid in the very elemental principles of our nature. We 
are brought under an everlasting necessity to be conformed, 
in the temper and spirit and ruling love of our minds, to the 
inexorable but blessed standard proposed to us in the re- 
ligion of Christ. There is here no room to be ^ in a strait 
betwixt two.' Moral law is just as imperative as physical ; 
indeed, they can scarcely be distinguished. Dislocate the 
smallest joint In the body, and we writhe in pain till it be 
restored. Pain, in such cases, is the very law of our being. 
The harmony of the system has been invaded — a solution 
of continuity brought about — and the penalty must be paid. 
In like manner, violence done to the conscience, which is 
of the essence of sin, is a wrenching of the soul into a 
moral dislocation. It is a rupture of the bands which keep 
the moral fabric in its integrity, and from the consequent 
suffering there is no exemption. What matters the question 
of outward positive inflictions, when we have wrapped up 
within us the elements of unknown sorrows, from which we 
can no more escape than from our own consciousness ! 
'' Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us 
again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, 
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away !" 



the end. 



% 



^ I 



4 

I 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
v- Treatment Date: August 2005 

.^"^^ %^ PreservationTechnologies 

^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA i60Bf 
(724)779-211": 






% .<^' 



'0 



x^-' ^^^ -.^-^^ 



■■^f=i./' 















'j#".- J' ^ 



v^^' v°'J^S% 



^A y-'' 



^ m. 



.,,0' .^\:i'^- c. 



•^ 









..^^ 












\\' '^. 



^// c^ 



".p ,<N 









y^ V 



•! «.S^ 



^\"^ .^, 



